Sunday, May 20, 2012

You won’t believe what Samie Jaffrey’s group at Cornell is confirming and elucidating about epigenetics, the fantastic adaptation capability cells have to adjust to environmental shifts. Epigenetics is a broad term for a range of adaptation capabilities achieved via the regulation of gene expression. Gene expression can be regulated, for example, by attaching small chemical markers such as methyl groups, like bar codes, to DNA or to the histone proteins about which the DNA is wrapped. Such chemical modifications have been known to be used also on the DNA copy—the messenger RNA—used to synthesize proteins. What Jaffrey’s group has found is that mRNA methylation is ubiquitous. Something like 20% of the transitory mRNA molecules are methylated in human cells. This truly is epigenetics in real time as the cell must be detecting the need and transferring the methyl groups to the right mRNA location at astonishing rates. It is evolution’s reductio ad absurdum on steroids.

We know that DNA and proteins are routinely modified by chemical switches that have profound effects on their function in both health and disease. But biologists believed mRNA was simply an intermediate between DNA and protein. Now we know mRNA is much more complex, and defects in RNA methylation can lead to disease.

Whereas the cytosine nucleotide is the common target of methylation in DNA, in mRNA it is adenosine. And whereas with cytosine the methyl group is added to the 5 carbon, with adenosine it is added to the amine group attached to the 6 carbon. And of course the mRNA methylation must be done at lightning fast rates. It is yet another amazing mechanism of genetic regulation and you can read more here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Of course none of this changes anything regarding evolution. The religiously-driven theory has long since been known to be scientifically preposterous. Even something as contrary as real time epigenetics can hardly make matters worse for evolution. At this point such findings are just expected as evolution has become the best contrary indicator in science.

These findings do, however, leave evolutionists even more so without excuse. Nothing in biology makes sense in light of evolution.

206 comments:

I'm absolutely astonished by this series of yours on methylation, Cornelius.

You seem to think it's new.

How on earth do you think that biologists think that cells even differentiate in multicellular organisms, let alone function, without control of gene expression?

Do you think that biologists until recently thought that all genes were switched on all the time?

Have you never heard of cell signalling? And what do you imagine that "regulatory genes" actually do if not, um, regulate genes? i.e. switch them on and off?

The only relatively new (and fascinating) discovery is that germ-cells genes are also controlled by cell signalling,and so offspring are conceived with some genes already in an on or off state.

And far from being problematic for evolutionary theory, "evo-devo" answers a huge number of problems for evolutionary theory as it stood, namely how very small incremental DNA variation can make considerable, but viable, changes to the phenotype. They explain the robustness (non-brittleness) of the system to variation (and make all those scoffing comparisons anti-evolutionists used to make about "mistakes" always being "disastrous" as in, say, human-made machines completely irrelevant)

And epigenetics shows us how this applies at the population level as well - by loosening the relationship between genotypic variation and phenotypic variation.

It's amazing. Unfortunately you are too wedded to your metaphysical anti-evolutionist position to appreciate it ;)

How on earth do you think that biologists think that cells even differentiate in multicellular organisms, let alone function, without control of gene expression?

Apparently Darwinists have no clue how it came about:

More Darwinian Degradation: Much Ado about Yeast - Michael Behe - January 2012Excerpt: Recently a paper by Ratcliff et al. (2012) entitled "Experimental evolution of mulitcellularity" appeared and received a fair amount of press attention, including a story in the New York Times. The authors discuss their results in terms of the origin of multicellularity on earth,,, "It seems to me that Richard Lenski, who knows how to get the most publicity out of exceedingly modest laboratory results, has taught his student well. In fact, the results can be regarded as the loss of two pre-existing abilities: 1) the loss of the ability to separate from the mother cell during cell division; and 2) the loss of control of apoptosis. The authors did not analyze the genetic changes that occurred in the cells, but I strongly suspect that if and when they do, they'll discover that functioning genes or regulatory regions were broken or degraded. This would be just one more example of evolution by loss of pre-existing systems, at which we already knew that Darwinian processes excel. The apparently insurmountable problem for Darwinism is to build new systems."http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/more_darwinian055511.html

Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010Excerpt: The standard doctrine has it that functionally important sequences, precisely because they are important to the organism, will generally be conserved across considerable evolutionary distances. But the emerging point of view holds that architecture can matter as much as sequence. As bioinformatics researcher Elliott Margulies and his team at the National Human Genome Research Institute put it, “the molecular shape of DNA is under selection” — a shape that can be maintained in its decisive aspects despite changes in the underlying sequence. It’s not enough, they write, to analyze “the order of A’s, C’s, G’s, and T’s,” because “DNA is a molecule with a three-dimensional structure.”[14] Elementary as the point may seem, it’s leading to a considerable reallocation of investigative resources.http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion

What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott - Winter 2011Excerpt: it’s obvious enough that a section of a DNA molecule does not “sculpt” anything. In fact, the research emphasis today is in the reverse direction: how proteins and the overall activity of the cell sculpt the genes and chromosomes. ,,, The activity of individual genes reflects the choreography of chromosomes, which reflects the larger choreography of the nucleus, which reflects the choreography of the cell and organism as a whole. Who, then, is sculpting whom?,,,http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/what-do-organisms-mean

An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications - September 2011 Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.” http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-face-rendering-worth-thousand.html

The (Electric) Face of a Frog - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndFe5CaDTlI

It's amazing. Unfortunately you are too wedded to your metaphysical anti-evolutionist position to appreciate it.

Actually it is the evolutionists who are advancing the metaphysical position. They say it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the millions of species spontaneously arose. That obviously is not a scientific statement.

Evolutionists insist evolution must be true for religious reasons, and when you point out the scientific problems they say you have a "metaphysical anti-evolutionist position." I have no such position. It makes no difference to me if evolution is true, false, or somewhere in between.

Distilled from a variety of comments you've made, comes the sense that you're irreligious.

Now, I find that a bit surprising only because in having read your books I never got a whiff of that.

It, of course, is abundantly clear that you see Darwinism as being in reaction to "special-creationism", and, as such, basically a 'straw-man argument.' But your seeming disavowal of religion comes as, I say, a bit of a surprise.

If I'm correct in my inference, I wonder if you want to expound on your personal position or not?

Any disavowal of Christian notions won't affect ID's central arguments as Dave Scott, David Berlinski, and others, are both ID proponents and acknowledged atheists. So I don't think there's anything to fear. I'm just curious.

[I should note that the lack of any religious motivation in criticizing Darwinism never slows down the Darwinist rant of ID being all about "Creationism". (No doubt, Charles would nevertheless be proud of their enthusiastic denounciations.) This only serves to highlight the intellectual bankruptcy of their views.]

CH: Actually it is the evolutionists who are advancing the metaphysical position. .

I was teasing you, Cornelius!

They say it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the millions of species spontaneously arose. That obviously is not a scientific statement.

Why do you always move the goalposts? I said that it was "beyond reasonable doubt" that humans and apes shared a common ancestor". And "beyond reasonable doubt" is a perfectly scientific statement. That's why we have p values.

Evolutionists insist evolution must be true for religious reasons,

No, they don't. They claim that various aspects of the theory of evolution are supported beyond reasonable doubt. You are just making up the other stuff.

Possibly for religious reasons.

and when you point out the scientific problems they say you have a "metaphysical anti-evolutionist position." I have no such position. It makes no difference to me if evolution is true, false, or somewhere in between.

Good. In that case I suggest you catch up a bit more on the science, because on the evidence of your posts here, you seem to have misunderstood vast swathes of it, and are decades behind on other vast swathes.

Evolutionists insist evolution must be true for religious reasons, and when you point out the scientific problems they say you have a "metaphysical anti-evolutionist position." I have no such position. It makes no difference to me if evolution is true, false, or somewhere in between.

Do your supervisors at Biola U. know that? It's a direct contradiction to the goals outlined in their Mission, Vision, and Values page.

"I said that it was "beyond reasonable doubt" that humans and apes shared a common ancestor"."

and yet:

“We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),

PaleoanthropologyExcerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:"Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture."http://conservapedia.com/Evolution#Paleoanthropology

Hominid Hype and the Election Cycle - Casey Luskin - September 2011Excerpt: Ignoring fraudulent fossils like Piltdown man, the last 50 years have seen a slew of so-called human ancestors which initially produced hype, and were later disproven.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/hominid_hype_and_the_election_050801.html “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”Anthropologist Ian Tattersall(curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis."http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Evolutionist Henry Gee, Nature 2001

Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. BeheExcerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.http://www.discovery.org/a/9461

Critically Analyzing the Argument from Human/Chimpanzee Genetic Similarity - Casey Luskin - Part 8 of 8 in a series of articles refuting Dennis Venema's claims for information generation by neo-Darwinian processes - September 2011Excerpt: we're not talking about "small changes" but rather, as the journal Science explained, at the very least these differences entail "35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans."[1]http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/09/critically_analyzing_the_argum051321.html

Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny - Casey Luskin - June 2011Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees)http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/study_reports_a_whopping_23_of047041.html

The Gorilla Who Broke the Tree - Doug Axe PhD. - March 2012Excerpt: Well, the recent publication of the gorilla genome sequence shows that the expected pattern just isn’t there. Instead of a nested hierarchy of similarities, we see something more like a mosaic. According to a recent report [1], “In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other…”That’s sufficiently difficult to square with Darwin’s tree that it ought to bring the whole theory into question. And in an ideal world where Darwinism is examined the way scientific theories ought to be examined, I think it would. But in the real world things aren’t always so simple.http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19703401390/the-gorilla-who-broke-the-tree

I looked at one of the blogs you listed. Thanks. It sort of jogs my memory regarding your books, and clearly positions you.

If I understand you well, you seem to take pretty much my same position: God creates. How He does this is, and very likely will always remain, beyond our comprehension. But the problem of Evil isn't a sure guide in our searchings.

Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? - Oct. 2009Excerpt: “There is no doubt that the progenitor of all life on Earth, the common ancestor, possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.”http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html

We now have evidence for photosynthetic life suddenly appearing on earth, as soon as water appeared on the earth, in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth.

The Sudden Appearance Of Photosynthetic Life On Earth - videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/4262918

The photosynthetic process is clearly a irreducible complex condition:

"There is no question about photosynthesis being Irreducibly Complex. But it’s worse than that from an evolutionary perspective. There are 17 enzymes alone involved in the synthesis of chlorophyll. Are we to believe that all intermediates had selective value? Not when some of them form triplet states that have the same effect as free radicals like O2. In addition if chlorophyll evolved before antenna proteins, whose function is to bind chlorophyll, then chlorophyll would be toxic to cells. Yet the binding function explains the selective value of antenna proteins. Why would such proteins evolve prior to chlorophyll? and if they did not, how would cells survive chlorophyll until they did?" Uncommon Descent Blogger

Evolutionary biology: Out of thin air John F. Allen & William Martin: The measure of the problem is here: “Oxygenetic photosynthesis involves about 100 proteins that are highly ordered within the photosynthetic membranes of the cell." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445610a.html

The ATP Synthase Enzyme - an exquisite motor necessary for first life - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4

Quantum Mechanics at Work in Photosynthesis: Algae Familiar With These Processes for Nearly Two Billion Years - Feb. 2010Excerpt: "We were astonished to find clear evidence of long-lived quantum mechanical states involved in moving the energy. Our result suggests that the energy of absorbed light resides in two places at once -- a quantum superposition state, or coherence -- and such a state lies at the heart of quantum mechanical theory.",,, "It suggests that algae knew about quantum mechanics nearly two billion years before humans," says Scholes.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100203131356.htm

When Did Life First Appear on Earth? - Fazale Rana - December 2010Excerpt: The primary evidence for 3.8 billion-year-old life consists of carbonaceous deposits, such as graphite, found in rock formations in western Greenland. These deposits display an enrichment of the carbon-12 isotope. Other chemical signatures from these formations that have been interpreted as biological remnants include uranium/thorium fractionation and banded iron formations. Recently, a team from Australia argued that the dolomite in these formations also reflects biological activity, specifically that of sulfate-reducing bacteria.http://www.reasons.org/when-did-life-first-appear-earth

Static evolution: is pond scum the same now as billions of years ago?Excerpt: But what intrigues (paleo-biologist) J. William Schopf most is lack of change. Schopf was struck 30 years ago by the apparent similarities between some 1-billion-year-old fossils of blue-green bacteria and their modern microbial microbial. "They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species," Schopf recalls. Now, after comparing data from throughout the world, Schopf and others have concluded that modern pond scum differs little from the ancient blue-greens. "This similarity in morphology is widespread among fossils of [varying] times," says Schopf. As evidence, he cites the 3,000 such fossils found;http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Static+evolution%3A+is+pond+scum+the+same+now+as+billions+of+years+ago%3F-a014909330

On the third page of this following site there is a illustration that shows some of the interdependent, ‘life-enabling’, biogeochemical complexity of different types of bacterial life on Earth.,,,

,,,Please note, that if even one type of bacteria group did not exist in this complex cycle of biogeochemical interdependence, that was illustrated on the third page of the preceding site, then all of the different bacteria would soon die out. This essential biogeochemical interdependence, of the most primitive different types of bacteria that we have evidence of on ancient earth, makes the origin of life ‘problem’ for neo-Darwinists that much worse.

He wants to know how evolution built it, not when other scientists first discovered it. Does that alleviate some of your astonishment.

EL: "How on earth do you think that biologists think that cells even differentiate in multicellular organisms, let alone function, without control of gene expression?"

By the methods he described. Why the drama? Why not just explain how the machinery arose?

EL: "Do you think that biologists until recently thought that all genes were switched on all the time?"

He will answer no. If you knew this then your just being dramatic again.

EL: "Have you never heard of cell signalling? And what do you imagine that "regulatory genes" actually do if not, um, regulate genes? i.e. switch them on and off?"

He's wanting you to explain how it arose, not re-explain what they do in place of that. But I would not be surprised if multiple purposes were found for subunits of the many regulatory complexes we see, or even for smaller RNA based ones.

EL: "The only relatively new (and fascinating) discovery is that germ-cells genes are also controlled by cell signalling,and so offspring are conceived with some genes already in an on or off state."

It's a little humorous, but you already said, "How on earth do you think that biologists think that cells even differentiate in multicellular organisms". I take it you do mean differentiate from the original germ cells no? Are you then going to be astonished either way? I'm astonished at your astonishment.

EL: "And far from being problematic for evolutionary theory, "evo-devo" answers a huge number of problems for evolutionary theory as it stood, namely how very small incremental DNA variation can make considerable, but viable, changes to the phenotype."

Huh? Did you just go from gene regulation to gene mutation? Have mutations in regulatory genes that control development been shown to be more viable? Anyway, the OP is begging you to explain how this complex machinery arose, and your answer seems to be, imagine what might have been built with these machines once they were built.

EL: "They explain the robustness (non-brittleness) of the system to variation"

Really? How? Are you sure you aren't talking about proximate causes again? I think we all agree on the physics.

EL: "(and make all those scoffing comparisons anti-evolutionists used to make about "mistakes" always being "disastrous" as in, say, human-made machines completely irrelevant)"

I look forward to the designs you will produce to sideline those anti-evolutionists who always use words like "always".

EL: "And epigenetics shows us how this applies at the population level as well - by loosening the relationship between genotypic variation and phenotypic variation"

And just so strong then is the power of natural selection at the sequence level. But I don't think the changes are usually permanent. Still, if you think so, then John Sanford would say this amplifies your "Princess and the Pea" problem by adding many more mattresses.

EL: "It's amazing. Unfortunately you are too wedded to your metaphysical anti-evolutionist position to appreciate it"

Trust me, he considers evolutionary explanations truly amazing and astonishing, but perhaps not for the reasons you think. But why do YOU find it amazing?

He wants to know how evolution built it, not when other scientists first discovered it.

John, since you seem to be a knowledgeable guy - I want to know how the Intelligent Designer built it.

Can you please supply some details? Like the timeline for when the Intelligent Design was done, and the manufacturing processes used. How did the Designer get the information as to what sort of design would work? Was it trial and error?

Where did the Designer get the raw materials, and what mechanisms were used in the construction? What tools and/or dies were employed? Do they still exist?

Was there one Designer of many? Was the Design and manufacture done in the same place, or different places?

Why the drama? Why not just explain how the machinery arose?

I agree, let's have no drama. Please just explain how the Intelligent Design machinery arose. Thanks in advance.

The Origin of Life on EarthExcerpt: Every living cell, even the simplest bacterium, teems with molecular contraptions that would be the envy of any nanotechnologist. As they incessantly shake or spin or crawl around the cell, these machines cut, paste and copy genetic molecules, shuttle nutrients around or turn them into energy, build and repair cellular membranes, relay mechanical, chemical or electrical messages—the list goes on and on, and new discoveries add to it all the time.It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.Dr. Jack Szostak - Nobel Laureate and leading Origin of Life researcher who, despite the evidence he sees first hand, still believes 'life' simply 'emerged' from moleculeshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=origin-of-life-on-earth

Bio-Mechanics - Don't the Intricacy & Ubiquity of Molecular Machines Provide Evidence for Design? by Casey Luskin - Spring 2012Excerpt: molecular machines use components we commonly recognize in human machinery. They may have joints, gears, propellers, turnstiles, brakes, and clutches, which form motors, tweezers, vehicles, assembly lines, transportation networks, intelligent error-checking systems, and much more. But biomolecular machines have a major difference that distinguishes them from human technology: their energetic efficiency dwarfs our best accomplishments. One paper observes that molecular machines "are generally more efficient than their macroscale counterparts,"7 and another suggests that the efficiency of the bacterial flagellum "could be ~100%."8 Human engineers can only dream of creating such devices.http://www.salvomag.com/new/articles/salvo20/molecular-machines-evidence-for-design.php

Simplest Microbes More Complex than ThoughtExcerpt: The smallest, simplest cells are prokaryotes.,,,One of the papers in Science to which PhysOrg referred said that some 200 molecular machines are found in this little microbe.http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091229a

Molecular Machines - WikipediaExcerpt: These proteins and their nanoscale dynamics are far more complex than any molecular machines that have yet been artificially constructed.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine

John:Huh? Did you just go from gene regulation to gene mutation? Have mutations in regulatory genes that control development been shown to be more viable? Anyway, the OP is begging you to explain how this complex machinery arose, and your answer seems to be, imagine what might have been built with these machines once they were built.

Of course I went from "gene regulation to gene mutation" - because mutations in regulatory genes affect gene expression especially over development, and thus give rise to a great deal of viable phenotypic variance.

And I am accustomed to goal-posts being shifted in these discussions, but the OP implies that regulation of gene expression is some problem for evolutionary theory, whereas the opposite is the case. Without variance in regulation of gene expression, we couldn't even account for multicellular organisms, much less their evolution.

But because gene expression is regulated by other genes, we can explain it very nicely in evolutionary terms.

Usually, IDists usually present protein coding genes as the "problem" for evolution (not that it is). I have no idea why Cornelius thinks that regulation of gene expression should be a problem.

In fact this isn't the first time he's seemed confused about genetics.

"Of course I went from "gene regulation to gene mutation" - because mutations in regulatory genes affect gene expression especially over development, and thus give rise to a great deal of viable phenotypic variance."

And yet, once again, the evidence states differently from what Liz claims:

Response to John Wise - October 2010Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html

With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,,http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html

Moreover, there is compelling evidence that much of the information for body plans is not even encoded in DNA but is encoded in the ontogenetic information of the 3-D structures of the cell:

“Live memory” of the cell, the other hereditary memory of living systems - 2005 Excerpt: To understand this notion of “live memory”, its role and interactions with DNA must be resituated; indeed, operational information belongs as much to the cell body and to its cytoplasmic regulatory protein components and other endogenous or exogenous ligands as it does to the DNA database. We will see in Section 2, using examples from recent experiments in biology, the principal roles of “live memory” in relation to the four aspects of cellular identity, memory of form, hereditary transmission and also working memory. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15888340

New Insights Into How (Adult) Stem Cells Determine What Tissue to Become - August 2010 Excerpt: Within 24 hours of culturing adult human stem cells on a new type of matrix, University of Michigan researchers were able to make predictions about how the cells would differentiate, or what type of tissue they would become.,,, "Our research confirms that mechanical factors are as important as the chemical factors regulating differentiation," Fu said. "The mechanical aspects have, until now, been largely ignored by stem cell biologists." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100801190257.htm

Gene Regulatory Networks in Embryos Depend on Pre-existing Spatial Coordinates - Jonathan Wells - July 2011Excerpt: The development of metazoan embryos requires the precise spatial deployment of specific cellular functions. This deployment depends on gene regulatory networks (GRNs), which operate downstream of initial spatial inputs (E. H. Davidson, Nature 468 [2010]: 911). Those initial inputs depend, in turn, on pre-existing spatial coordinate systems. In Drosophila oocytes, for example, spatial localization of the earliest-acting elements of the maternal GRN depends on the prior establishment of an anteroposterior body axis by antecedent asymmetries in the ovary. Those asymmetries appear to depend on cytoskeletal and membrane patterns rather than on DNA sequences,,,http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=7751

Thorton "wants to know how the Intelligent Designer built it.Can you please supply some details? Like the timeline for when the Intelligent Design was done, and the manufacturing processes used."

Timeline: 6,000 - 10,000 years ago. No manufacturing processes per se were used.

"How did the Designer get the information as to what sort of design would work? Was it trial and error?"

He is all knowing and pulled the information out of His own brain. No, it was not trial and error. He spoke and it was accomplished; He commanded and it was done.

"Where did the Designer get the raw materials, and what mechanisms were used in the construction? What tools and/or dies were employed? Do they still exist?"

He created out of nothing - ex-nihilo creation. He created the raw materials Himself. No, He did not use any tools.

"Was there one Designer of many? Was the Design and manufacture done in the same place, or different places?"

Why do you want to know this? Weird! God created ex-nihilo using His spoken Word. One Designer and Creator. Design was done in His brain. Most of creation was accomplished on the earth.

"Please just explain how the Intelligent Design machinery arose."

God created it. Outside of commanding things into existence, we are not given details as to exactly how it happened. An intelligent designer is the only logical explanation for the thousands of nano-machines that exist in the cell. Evolution cannot explain them or provide sufficient cause for them. ID can. Neither ID nor evolutionists can prove their belief, but one is more logical than the other. We may disagree as to which is which, but the fact remains that intelligence makes more logical sense than random chance as the cause.

Evolutionists are wedded to a philosophy that must give a non-design explanation for the origin of everything in biology. They have no metric or standard to do otherwise. Indeed, they vehemently resist any such metric or standard. If it were discovered that living cells send space probes to Mars and bring back soil samples, by default, an evolutionary explanation is the only explanation allowed... no matter how absurd. I would challenge any evolutionists reading this to tell me why they would not be forced to find ONLY an evolutionary explanation for this? Or, anything else. They can't, because their philosophy is fundamentally incapable of processing such a thing.

Evolutionists really need to see their fear of teleology as irrational. They have no basis in fact for believing that science research will stop if biology is not bound to evolutionary dogma. Great minds and great scientists who held to a teleological view of life have for centuries discovered and invented many things. History does not support the evolutionists irrational fear.

Evolutionists have no reasonable argument in asserting that discovering biological function and health and medical research would stop if teleological views were held. Indeed, if man ever creates a basic life form from scratch, who will deny that this process would not be described in intelligent design terms?

Evolutionists have no reasonable argument in asserting that discovering biological function and health and medical research would stop if teleological views were held.

Stupidity this mind-numbing needs to be addressed.

The big problem with allowing supernatural causation is that any observation can be reconciled with it. Because any observation can be reconciled with it, it is incapable of making testable predictions.

Maybe the ignorant Creationist can tell us how to test a new vaccine if we have to allow for a whimsical supernatural entity changing the effects with every test. One day the vaccine cures the common cold and the next day it's a deadly poison. How does health and medical research proceed when the results can never be trusted?

Science and Pseudoscience – Imre Lakatos“nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific” – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, , quote as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture

'Maybe the ignorant Creationist can tell us how to test a new vaccine'

and yet:

"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No."Philip S. Skell - (the late) Professor at Pennsylvania State University.http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

Maybe the ignorant Creationist can tell us how to test a new vaccine if we have to allow for a whimsical supernatural entity changing the effects with every test. One day the vaccine cures the common cold and the next day it's a deadly poison. How does health and medical research proceed when the results can never be trusted?

Just a little bit of thought provides this: a miracle is the suspension of the laws of nature; and, therefore, to invoke miracles is to simultaneously invoke, or posit, the laws of nature the miracle supercedes. Your ignorant brand of evolutionism wrongly, naively, unthinkingly, attributes the dissolution of the laws of nature to any invocation of supernatural processes. Wake up!

Just a little bit of thought provides this: a miracle is the suspension of the laws of nature; and, therefore, to invoke miracles is to simultaneously invoke, or posit, the laws of nature the miracle supercedes. Your ignorant brand of evolutionism wrongly, naively, unthinkingly, attributes the dissolution of the laws of nature to any invocation of supernatural processes. Wake up!

Use your imagination! Thorton is right. Once you admit a being with the power to override the laws of nature at will - or whim - the scientific enterprise becomes impossible.

If miracles are possible, where do you draw the limit? Turning water into wine or loaves into fishes or healing leprosy are all very well but they are party tricks compared to what could happen.

Suppose this being has a capricious sense of humor and is subtly influencing the results of scientific experiments to throw researchers off the scent. How would we ever know if it didn't want us to?

Or we could be a little more ambitious. A being with such powers could have created the Universe a week ago or yesterday or five minutes ago complete with all our memories of our past. How could we ever tell?

The fact is we have no way of knowing what such a being would be really like, whether its intentions were kindly or cruel, whether it created us in order to form a loving relationship with us or whether we were just playthings, created to amuse it for a while and then cast aside once it lost interest.

Maybe you think it's not like that but what makes you think the universe would be set up to please you?

Ian, if your god was a trickster, as you presuppose Almighty God to be, then the only thing you could be sure about was that you had a mind:

"Descartes remarks that he can continue to doubt whether he has a body; after all, he only believes he has a body as a result of his perceptual experiences, and so the demon could be deceiving him about this. But he cannot doubt that he has a mind, i.e. that he thinks. So he knows he exists even though he doesn’t know whether or not he has a body."http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/philosophy/downloads/a2/unit4/descartes/DescartesDualism.pdf

But even then, if none of your perceptions were reliable, and all you knew is that you were conscious, then that would still defeat atheistic materialism.

Just to continue, my personal perception and experience is that evolution is a religious belief camouflaged as science. However, if we, who believe in God that created everything, have a positive religious belief, you, evolutionists, have a negative religious belief. But don't despair, from evolution to positive belief is only one step.

Just to continue, my personal perception and experience is that evolution is a religious belief camouflaged as science. However, if we, who believe in God that created everything, have a positive religious belief, you, evolutionists, have a negative religious belief. But don't despair, from evolution to positive belief is only one step.

Evolution isn't a religious belief, and it isn't negative towards religion. Evolution is a well supported scientific theory that is completely neutral towards religion. In that respect it is like every other scientific theory.

Religious people who don't understand the evolutionary sciences sometimes feel threatened by them because they perceive anything that doesn't support their Biblical beliefs as a personal attack. That is a view created by their ignorance however, not through any hostile actions by science itself.

Evolution is no more religious and no more threatening to religions than geology or meteorology.

"Proselytizing for Darwin's God in the Classroom" (from 2008): John G. West - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEajEwzYwHg

Evolution Is Religion--Not Science by Henry Morris, Ph.D. Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Philosopher

The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoninghttp://www.springerlink.com/content/n3n5415037038134/

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html

And Darwinism far from being just a benign pseudo-scientific theory that atheists push on society, has in fact had horrendous consequences on society;

I have no clue why my posts are not making it here. But anyway, my first one was about your strawman on the absense of testable ID hypotheses. Examples of workable ID hypotheses are really many (cryptographt, forensics, medical diagnostics, various IQ/phychology tests, archeology). However, as regards OOL, we of course cannot test it. Likewise, we cannot test abiogenesis. We can only do things that would lend more belief to a given hypothesis. By me, that is ok. The more research is being done, the more confidence one has in design. The synthetic biology area is all POC of Intelligent Design.

Another testable prediction specially for you. Based only on what you type here, I hypothesise that you are a human, not a bot. I also predict that what I am typing now you will be able to read, process and respond to if you so wish.

Blogspot still sometimes eats posts. I agree it's very irritating. I always keep a copy in Word in case a post disappears (which they sometimes do). CH is aware of the issue and I believe he's been working with Blogspot to correct the problem.

But anyway, my first one was about your strawman on the absense of testable ID hypotheses. Examples of workable ID hypotheses are really many (cryptographt, forensics, medical diagnostics, various IQ/phychology tests, archeology).

Those are testable hypotheses for HUMAN intelligent design. That's a lot different than a testable hypothesis that an UNKNOWN Intelligent Designer created all life.

The only reason we can test for HUMAN intelligent design is because we already know the capabilities and limitations of human designers. We don't have that info for your hypothesized UNKNOWN Intelligent Designer.

However, as regards OOL, we of course cannot test it. Likewise, we cannot test abiogenesis.

Sure we can. We'll never know with 100% certainty that any way we discover was the actual way it happened 4 billion years ago, but we'll know an Intelligent Designer is unnecessary.

The synthetic biology area is all POC of Intelligent Design.

No, it's supportive of HUMAN intelligent design, nothing more. Just because humans can design sprinklers to water the lawn doesn't mean rainclouds are designed.

Or we could be a little more ambitious. A being with such powers could have created the Universe a week ago or yesterday or five minutes ago complete with all our memories of our past. How could we ever tell?

Jesus "ascended into Heaven." Where is his body? Is it somewhere in space? It's been 2,000 years. Is Heaven less than 2,000 years away via space travel?

Yes, reality can be quite different than what we experience.

But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

We experience the "laws of nature" every moment of our existence. Do we experience them as varying? No. If the laws of nature are steady enough for science to have prospered, then how have miracles affected any of this?

You seem to suggest that the mere existence of a Supreme Being, upon whom all the laws of nature rest, and Who, therefore, has the power to supersede these laws, is enough to bring down all of science.

According to this argument, the last place in the world where science should have arose was the Christian West. There is a whole boatload of miracle stories associated in the West, and but a scattering everywhere else.

So, unless you can explain how science managed to rise in the Christian West despite all the miracle stories, then your argument has no basis. However, should you, OTOH, explain how this came about, then you render your own argument moot. I hope you can see these defects.

John: He wants to know how evolution built it, not when other scientists first discovered it. Does that alleviate some of your astonishment.

Last time checked, organisms build themselves. Or are you suggesting that each organism is hand built and designed, in real time, by an invisible, abstract designer that we cannot see?

If not, then evolution doesn't build organisms. Rather, it creates the knowledge of how to build organisms, which is located in the genome. Right?

And by knowledge, I mean any information that is significant in that tends to remain in a medium once placed there.

Specifically, biological features, including cellular mechanisms, represent adaptations. Adaptations represent transformations of matter. Transformations occur in when the requisite knowledge of how perform that transformation is present, along with the necessary energy, etc.

Right? Everyone following me so far? No?

Before I continue, does anyone have any criticism of the above? If so, please be specific.

In other words, given the continued claims that no explanation has been given, it would seem that someone must disagree with the above (or what will follow) in some specific way, and that would be expressed in the form of criticism. Yet, no one seems to have anything specific.

So, apparently, evolutionary critics here can have a problem with an explanation, while simultaneously being unable to explain exactly where the problem is when invited to do so, directly and repeated.

It it? Again, it sounds like you're calming that knowledge can only be created by an agent. Is this correct? If so, why?

Blas: Give me an example of knowledge not created by an agent?

Just so I understand you correctly, knowledge can only be created by agents because we only observed agents creating knowledge? Is that your argument?

However, should we following this line of inductivism, every designer we've ever observed designing something has had a complex material nervous system, such as the human brain. As such, wouldn't you also necessarily conclude that only beings with complex complex material nervous systems can create knowledge?

Yet, I'm guessing you do not. So, it would seem your objection is incomplete, arbitrary or illogical.

Again, why don't you start out by explaining how knowledge is created, then point out how evolution does't fit that expiation. Please be specific.

Or perhaps you're implicitly claiming the knowledge of how to build the biosphere has always exited. As such it couldn't have been created?

Is Life Unique? David L. Abel - January 2012Concluding Statement: The scientific method itself cannot be reduced to mass and energy. Neither can language, translation, coding and decoding, mathematics, logic theory, programming, symbol systems, the integration of circuits, computation, categorizations, results tabulation, the drawing and discussion of conclusions. The prevailing Kuhnian paradigm rut of philosophic physicalism is obstructing scientific progress, biology in particular. There is more to life than chemistry. All known life is cybernetic. Control is choice-contingent and formal, not physicodynamic.http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/

"Nonphysical formalism not only describes, but preceded physicality and the Big BangFormalism prescribed, organized and continues to govern physicodynamics."http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/106/ag

The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html

The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness - David L. Abel - August 2011Summary: “The Law of Physicodynamic Incompleteness” states that inanimate physicodynamics is completely inadequate to generate, or even explain, the mathematical nature of physical interactions (the purely formal laws of physics and chemistry). The Law further states that physicodynamic factors cannot cause formal processes and procedures leading to sophisticated function. Chance and necessity alone cannot steer, program or optimize algorithmic/computational success to provide desired non-trivial utility.http://www.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Incompleteness.html

“As such, wouldn't you also necessarily conclude that only beings with complex complex material nervous systems can create knowledge?”

Yet, I'm guessing you do not.

Well, you are guesing wrong I conclude that only beings with complex material mervous systems can “create” knoledge or any other being with the capabilities that a complex material nervous systems confer.

“So, it would seem your objection is incomplete, arbitrary or illogical.”

Please explain why it is incomplete, arbitrary or illogical?

“Or perhaps you're implicitly claiming the knowledge of how to build the biosphere has always exited. As such it couldn't have been created?”

Blas: Well, you are guesing wrong I conclude that only beings with complex material mervous systems can “create” knoledge or any other being with the capabilities that a complex material nervous systems confer.

I'm not following you. Could you elaborate on this further?

For example, are you suggesting that non-material beings have complex nervous systems? But this would be illogical.

If not, wouldn't the fact that every designer we've ever observed designing things has had complex material nervous system also cause you to exclude non-material designers from the sort of "subjects" that can create knowledge?

Blas: Please explain why it is incomplete, arbitrary or illogical?

See above.

You made an inductive argument. Specifically: The subject is always an agent. Give me an example[s] of knowledge not created by an agent? On it's own, this is an inductive argument. This is in contrast to an explanation for how knowledge is created, which is what I asked you for earlier.

However, when I attempted to apply the same inductive reasoning to some other aspect of designers, the conclusion seems to conflict with views you've expressed earlier regarding the roles of non-material beings.

So, it would seem that you're arbitrarily employing inductivism, merely think you're employing inductivism, but are not, or knew full well you're objection wasn't actually based on inductivism but presented an inductive argument anyway.

Again, in the interest of making progress, why don't you present your explanation as to how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary processes do not fit that explanation. Please be specific.

Scott saidMe: “only beings with complex material mervous systems can “create” knoledge or any other being with the capabilities that a complex material nervous systems confer.”

Scott:”I'm not following you. Could you elaborate on this further?” It is not brain itself what allows to”create” knowledge, but the capability of make abstractions and correlations. Not materials beings can do that without a brain.

“However, when I attempted to apply the same inductive reasoning to some other aspect of designers, the conclusion seems to conflict with views you've expressed earlier regarding the roles of non-material beings.”There is no conflict in what I stated.

“Again, in the interest of making progress, why don't you present your explanation as to how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary processes do not fit that explanation. Please be specific.”I already answer this to you, the unique way to create knowledge is correlating the idea of being to our sensorial perceptions or to other ideas.

Blas: It is not brain itself what allows to”create” knowledge, but the capability of make abstractions and correlations. Not materials beings can do that without a brain.

They can? So, you can provide an example of a being that makes abstractions, yet doesn't have a complex nervous system? Specifically, we've never observed a being that didn't have a complex nervous system, such a the human brain, making abstractions and correlations.

Yet, I'm guessing you do not think the ability to make abstractions or correlations is limited to beings with material nervous systems, correct?

Blas: I already answer this to you, the unique way to create knowledge is correlating the idea of being to our sensorial perceptions or to other ideas.

Can you elaborate on this further?

For example, are you suggesting there is more than one way of creating knowledge, but one way is unique to intelligent agents? Also, it's unclear exactly what role sensory perception or the "idea of being" plays in this process.

"They can? So, you can provide an example of a being that makes abstractions, yet doesn't have a complex nervous system? Specifically, we've never observed a being that didn't have a complex nervous system, such a the human brain, making abstractions and correlations."

You are right you and me never have seen a being without a complex nervous system making abstraction. Also you and me never have seen non-material beings, but you asked me:

"For example, are you suggesting that non-material beings have complex nervous systems? But this would be illogical."

So, you are trying to mix two separated questions to make my position illogical. Only materials beings with complex nervous systems can make abstractions. Non material beins, if they exists maybe can make abstractions without complex material nervous system.

"Yet, I'm guessing you do not think the ability to make abstractions or correlations is limited to beings with material nervous systems, correct?"

I usually make both inductivism and deductivism, that it is not important. The important is not to make contradictions.

"Can you elaborate on this further?"

Let´s try.

"For example, are you suggesting there is more than one way of creating knowledge, but one way is unique to intelligent agents?"

No I am implying that knowledge is unique to agents that can make abstractins and correlations. There are no other source of knowledge.

"Also, it's unclear exactly what role sensory perception or the "idea of being" plays in this process."

Our mind make correlatins between ideas. Ideas are abstraction obtained from a group of correlations. So to solve this conundrum you need to start with something. You need a starting idea, the most intrinsic idea to the consciusness, the idea of being, we start constructing knowledge from this idea

I amThis is lightthis is water

and the knoledge is nothing more than the aplication to the idea of being to what we receive trough our senses and his elaboration by correlation.

Blas: So, you are trying to mix two separated questions to make my position illogical. Only materials beings with complex nervous systems can make abstractions. Non material beins, if they exists maybe can make abstractions without complex material nervous system.

Actually, I provided a number of options, which included illogical as well as you not actually using induction, but merely thinking you were. So far, it seems that the latter is the case, not the former.

Blas: No I am implying that knowledge is unique to agents that can make abstractins and correlations. There are no other source of knowledge.

Again, why is this the case? Merely because we've only observed agents creating knowledge? But, as I've pointed out, induction is problematic when applied constantly to designers.

Blas: So to solve this conundrum you need to start with something. You need a starting idea, the most intrinsic idea to the consciusness, the idea of being, we start constructing knowledge from this idea

Just so I understand you correctly, you're saying we start out using background knowledge, such as the idea that things can actually exist, as a starting point for creating knowledge? But what happens then?

Also, what do you mean by abstraction? Please be specific.

For example, if abstractions do not take a form that allows them to be criticized or tested using observations then it's unclear how they actually represent knowledge.

Scott said“Again, why is this the case? Merely because we've only observed agents creating knowledge?”

That is a good reason, if you know other process maybe I´m wrong.

“But, as I've pointed out, induction is problematic when applied constantly to designers.”I do not see any problem. Could you be more specific?

“Just so I understand you correctly, you're saying we start out using background knowledge, such as the idea that things can actually exist, as a starting point for creating knowledge? But what happens then?

Also, what do you mean by abstraction? Please be specific.

Your example:

I am. Bird are. Birds can fly. Therefore, I could fly if I really tried hard enough. However, I don't really want to try hard enough. Therefore, I can fly.

“For example, if abstractions do not take a form that allows them to be criticized or tested using observations then it's unclear how they actually represent knowledge.”Testing and criticizing it is not “cration” of knowledge, I already crated it.There is no need to test or criticize my knowledge. I do not fool myself. Test or criticize my knowledge would mean that I beleive that exist an objective knowledge not created by me, that means I beleive exists the True, and I criticize and test the knoledge I “create” against the True.

Blas: Testing and criticizing it is not “cration” of knowledge, I already crated it.There is no need to test or criticize my knowledge. I do not fool myself. Test or criticize my knowledge would mean that I beleive that exist an objective knowledge not created by me, that means I beleive exists the True, and I criticize and test the knoledge I “create” against the True.

Blas,

You're going to need to clarify this as I'm having difficulty making sense of it.

It's unclear how "I already created it" explains how knowledge is created. Nor is it clear by which process you know you "do not fool myself" represents an expiation of how knowledge is created.

Again, it would seem that your explanation for how knowledge is created is illogical, in that I'm unable to make heads or tails out of it, or completely absent in that you're merely asserting that you've created knowledge without actually explaining how.

"Blas, You're going to need to clarify this as I'm having difficulty making sense of it.

It's unclear how "I already created it" explains how knowledge is created."

You have to try hard Scott, try to read what I read not what you want. I put "I already created it" when you asked me how can knowledge be created without critizising or testing.

"Nor is it clear by which process you know you "do not fool myself" represents an expiation of how knowledge is created."

"I do not fool myself" is not an explanation of how knowledge is created, is just an explanation because why subjective knowledge, that still is knowledge, do not need to be criticized and tested. Criticizing and testing the personal subjective knowledge is necessary only if we beleive a objective and true knowledge exists. Because criticize and test is a process where you test the hypotesis (your personal subjective kwoledge) with other objective true knowledge and you see how well they matched.

"Again, it would seem that your explanation for how knowledge is created is illogical, in that I'm unable to make heads or tails out of it, or completely absent in that you're merely asserting that you've created knowledge without actually explaining how"

Well, I explained how knowledge is created, you understood it because you give me a perfect example. But as you have your own view how knowledge is created you call my explanation illogical, absent and not existant. Instead of that you have to try to say why you think my theory of how knowledge is created is wrong.

Blas: You have to try hard Scott, try to read what I read not what you want. I put "I already created it" when you asked me how can knowledge be created without critizising or testing.

So, knowledge isn't created, but has always existed? Otherwise, I still fail to see how, "I already created it", explains how it was created.

Blas: Criticizing and testing the personal subjective knowledge is necessary only if we beleive a objective and true knowledge exists. Because criticize and test is a process where you test the hypotesis (your personal subjective kwoledge) with other objective true knowledge and you see how well they matched.

First, how do we create a hypothesis?

Second: I am. Bird are. Birds can fly. Therefore, I could fly if I really tried hard enough. However, I don't really want to try hard enough. Therefore, I can fly.

Does "Therefore, I can fly" represent knowledge? If so, in what way?

Third, it's unclear how you have access to "objective true knowledge" by which to make a comparison.

If knowledge always existed doesn`t matter about how it is "created". I have the tool to "create" knowledge (the idea of being and the capacity to make abstractions and relations) since I have consciousness.

"Otherwise, I still fail to see how, "I already created it", explains how it was created."

You fail because I haven`t explained how we create knowlwdge by "I already created it".And you know that, because below you used the right example.

"First, how do we create a hypothesis?"

By applying the idea of being to other ideas or the signals we get with our senses.

"Second: I am. Bird are. Birds can fly. Therefore, I could fly if I really tried hard enough. However, I don't really want to try hard enough. Therefore, I can fly.

Does "Therefore, I can fly" represent knowledge?"

Yes, it represent the knowledge you have about your capacities.

If so, in what way? "

Knowledge is knowledge. I do not know it has differents "ways".

"Third, it's unclear how you have access to "objective true knowledge" by which to make a comparison."

For this discussion about how knowledge is "created" I never stated that we have access to an objective and true knowledge.That is important, not for the creation of knowledge but for test and criticize.When you say that knowledge should be tested and criticized against what are you thinking we perform that?

Scott: "Second: I am. Bird are. Birds can fly. Therefore, I could fly if I really tried hard enough. However, I don't really want to try hard enough. Therefore, I can fly.

Scott: Does "Therefore, I can fly" represent knowledge?"

Blas:Yes, it represent the knowledge you have about your capacities.

You're being ambiguous.

In reality, It's either true or false that I created a hypothesis regarding my ability to fly. In reality, I can actually fly or I cannot. Of course, this assumes one is a realist in that one thinks an external reality actually exists.

For example, if you recall creating hypothesis you could fly two weeks ago but, in reality, an abstract designer chose to create the world we observe last Thursday, then you didn't create this hypothesis. Rather, the abstract designer would have created it when it created the world we observe last Thursday.

Can you show the ambiguity of : Yes, it represent the knowledge you have about your capacities

“In reality, It's either true or false that I created a hypothesis regarding my ability to fly.”

No, if you said “I can fly” you already had created an hypothesis. You, if you want can test the hypothesis if it is true or false. But you cannot say it is false you created one.

“In reality, I can actually fly or I cannot.”

Yes, but you already reached a conclusion attributing the idea of being to other ideas and signals you perceived trough the senses, you already have an hypotesis (knowledge )

“ Of course, this assumes one is a realist in that one thinks an external reality actually exists.”

So you are testing the knowledge created with something you assume exists and you are calling correct the hypothesis that agree with reality and wrong that do not.

“For example, if you recall creating hypothesis you could fly two weeks ago but, in reality, an abstract designer chose to create the world we observe last Thursday, then you didn't create this hypothesis. Rather, the abstract designer would have created it when it created the world we observe last Thursday.”

And you call me ambiguous!Lets try:

1 “if you recall creating hypothesis you could fly two weeks ago”

Ok: Hypotesis “I could fly two weeks ago.”

2 “an abstract designer chose to create the world we observe last Thursday”

This is your hypotesis? The reality? Who knows this is reality?

3 “then you didn't create this hypothesis”

Oh yes, I did, look at #1

4 “Rather, the abstract designer would have created it when it created the world we observe last Thursday”

May be, but I “created” the hypotesis today. See #1

So, how do you know you created it?

Because I applyed the idea of being to another idea of my imagination.

Blas: Can you show the ambiguity of : Yes, it represent the knowledge you have about your capacities

I did. You could be referring to either…

A. In reality, It's either true or false that I created a hypothesis regarding my ability to fly. B. In reality, I can actually fly or I cannot.C. It's true or false that an external reality exists.

Blas: No, if you said “I can fly” you already had created an hypothesis. You, if you want can test the hypothesis if it is true or false. But you cannot say it is false you created one.

I can't say it might be false? Creationism is misleadingly named. This is because it's a general purpose means of denying that creation took place. This includes the assumption that I actually created a hypothesis two weeks ago.

Blas: Yes, but you already reached a conclusion attributing the idea of being to other ideas and signals you perceived trough the senses, you already have an hypotesis (knowledge )

Again, you might believe that God wouldn't create the universe we observe last Thursday, but this doesn't mean he didn't, in reality. So, how do you know you created that hypothesis, rather than God, when he created the universe last Thursday?

Blas: This is your hypotesis? The reality? Who knows this is reality?

No, it's not my hypothesis. I'm merely pointing out that a conclusion that you created the hypothesis "I can fly" two weeks ago would be dependent on your hypothesis that God didn't create the universe last Thursday, being true, in reality.

How do you know this hypothesis isn't false? Please be specific.

Blas: May be, but I “created” the hypotesis today. See #1

If God created the universe the very moment you started writing that sentence, then it would only appear that you created it that hypothesis today.

Again, Creationism is misleadingly named. This is because it's a general purpose means of denying that creation took place. This includes denying that you actually authored the comment I'm replying to, that Cornelius created the idea that evolution is founded on religious belief, that Darwin created the theory of evolution, let alone that it he was influenced by past religious ideas, etc.

If an abstract designer, with no defined limitations, chose to create the universe we observe five minutes ago, then all of the above would have been "created" by said designer. You could appeal to this general purpose means to deny all of it.

Scott said“A. In reality, It's either true or false that I created a hypothesis regarding my ability to fly.”Again no.True or false maybe the hypotesis not the fact that I “created” an hypothesis regarding my ability to fly.

“B. In reality, I can actually fly or I cannot.”True, but that not make ambiguous the fact I “created” and hypothesis regarding my ability to fly.I “created” (actually you “created”) the hypothesis and both know that.“C. It's true or false that an external reality exists.”Again, that do not afect the fact that I or you already “created” an hypothesis that is knowledge. Also already both have accepted that an external reality exists, because we talk about birds and fly. The point may be how well we can know that reality, but this has nothing to do withthe “creation” of knowledge that was your question.

“Blas: No, if you said “I can fly” you already had created an hypothesis. You, if you want can test the hypothesis if it is true or false. But you cannot say it is false you created one.

I can't say it might be false?”Off course you can say it, that do not make knowledge is already “created”.

“No, it's not my hypothesis. I'm merely pointing out that a conclusion that you created the hypothesis "I can fly" two weeks ago would be dependent on your hypothesis that God didn't create the universe last Thursday, being true, in reality.

How do you know this hypothesis isn't false? Please be specific.”You are jumping from “creating” knowledge” and testing the true of the knowledge created. To test if a knowledge “created” it is true or not we have to create more knowledge:We have to define what is true what is false. We have to define a framework according our definitions of tru or false where we can give the attribute of true or false to our hypothesis.“If God created the universe the very moment you started writing that sentence, then it would only appear that you created it that hypothesis today.”May be and so?

“Again, you might believe that God wouldn't create the universe we observe last Thursday, but this doesn't mean he didn't, in reality. So, how do you know you created that hypothesis, rather than God, when he created the universe last Thursday?”

There is no way to distinguish if we or a God is creating the hypothesis, seems to us that we are “creating” them. But it can be that we are “remembering” knowledge, God is creating (or has created) in our mind that knowledge are all possibles answer to your question. The only thing to sayis that we do not hasprove or any of that possibilities, at least for me it is me that “create” that knowledge no matter it could be an illusion.

“Creationism is misleadingly named. This is because it's a general purpose means of denying that creation took place. This includes the assumption that I actually created a hypothesis two weeks ago.”“Again, you might believe that God wouldn't create the universe we observe last Thursday, but this doesn't mean he didn't, in reality. So, how do you know you created that hypothesis, rather than God, when he created the universe last Thursday?”“Again, Creationism is misleadingly named. This is because it's a general purpose means of denying that creation took place.”

Your question was how knowledge is created I do not see the relation with creationism.

“This includes denying that you actually authored the comment I'm replying to, that Cornelius created the idea that evolution is founded on religious belief, that Darwin created the theory of evolution, let alone that it he was influenced by past religious ideas, etc. “

I think you do not understand CH point.

“If an abstract designer, with no defined limitations, chose to create the universe we observe five minutes ago, then all of the above would have been "created" by said designer. You could appeal to this general purpose means to deny all of it.”

Yes I can appeal to many false arguments to deny anything, the problems is why I´m going to do that?

Blas: Your question was how knowledge is created I do not see the relation with creationism.

If you do not see the relationship between the two, then what part of what I wrote do you disagree with?

Unfortunately, I can't make sense out what you wrote.

Blas: Yes I can appeal to many false arguments to deny anything, the problems is why I´m going to do that?

If it's false, then why do you appeal to the same argument in the case of evolution?

Specifically, the role that evolutionary process play in evolutionary theory is to create the knowledge of how to build biological adaptations. Yet you claim that this knowledge wasn't created by evolution. Rather, it was God that "created" this knowledge when he "created" the biosphere.

Do you see how this is the same exact argument, which you refer to as "false"?

Furthermore, there was supposedly never a time where God did not know to to build dinosaurs, frogs, etc.. In other words, God has the knowledge of how to build anything logically possible, even if he choses not to. This would include things that have yet to exist, or that God supposedly doesn't want to create.

In case it's not clear, I'm looking for criticism that would take an expanded form of the following....

The creation of knowledge is explained through X,Y and Z. However evolutionary process do not appear to take the form of X,Y and Z. Specifically, the (non-strawman) explanation presented by evolutionary theory is A, B and C. As such, evolutionary theory does not fit the explanation of how we create knowledge.

However, objections so far have only took the form of: "only agents create knowledge because we've never observed non-agents created knowledge"

Among other things, both the human brain and DNA function as media that can be use for general purpose information storage,

One particular sort of information is significant in that once it's embodied in a such media, it tends to cause itself to remain embodied there.

This sort of information, which I'm referring to here as knowledge, isn't likely to come about by any other means than error correcting processes, such as evolution or thought.

In addition, there are two different types of knowledge, which have important distinctions. The sort of knowledge we find in the genome is non-explantory knowledge, which has a limited reach. On the other hand, explanatory knowledge - the kind that people create - can have a broad or even unlimited reach. This is because people are universal explainers.

People can also create non-expantory knowledge in the form of useful rules-of-thumb, which are purely predictive, as their explanatory content consists of only background knowledge.

For example, if was suffering from a genetic disease, forming a treatment merely based on the background knowledge that modifying any of my genes might possibility cause an improvement would be a rule of thumb. This would be in contrast to forming a treatment based on a hard to vary explanation that modifying specific genes in a specific way would cause an improvement, which would be explanatory knowledge.

Note, as illustrated in the scenario above, explanatory knowledge is more likely to result in a desired outcome. As such, we'd expect intelligent agents that supposedly actually want to achieve a desired outcome to employ explanatory knowledge, rather than non-explanatory knowledge, whenever possible. Otherwise, it would appear that said designer isn't all that intelligent after all, since we'd know more about making progress that it does.

Of course, evolutionary processes cannot create explanations. As such, they can only create non-explanatory knowledge. Furthermore, mutations are random in the sense that they do not represent intentional conjectures of the sort that you and I make, as people.

However, both kinds of knowledge are similar enough that they are both highly relevant in understating how human knowledge is created. Specifically, some of the misconceptions we've seen here in regards to biological evolution have counterparts in misconceptions of how human knowledge is created. In fact, in many cases they are the exact same misconnection.

Thorton you are a staunch defender of 'science' from 'ignorant Creationists'. But I have a question, please tell me exactly, 'how can such a 'ignorant Creationist' like the following one make such a dramatic contribution to science and still believe in God at the same time???'

"Some people ... still maintain that since science has provided us with so many answers the day will soon arrive when we will be able to understand even the creation of the fundamental laws of nature without a Divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?" — Wernher von Braun, rocket pioneer, 1972 - genius behind Apollo program

50 Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God by Tihomir Dimitrovhttp://www.nobelists.net/

further note:

Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.~ Alvin Plantinga

Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description)http://vimeo.com/32145998

Can atheists trust their own minds? - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byN38dyZb-k

vel perhaps you should read a little about the intricacies of von Braun's life:

Wernher von Braun - Christian, “Father of Rocket Science”Excerpt: "Up till now, growing Nazi intrusions had been a nuisance and irritant to the decidedly non-political team, but the successful launch suddenly switched Hitler’s attention to it. He organized a committee of overseers; von Braun and Dornberger eluded some of the intrusions with claims that the work demanded absolute secrecy, but by the end of 1943, after the British had inflicted severe damage at the test center, Hitler ordered the production underground.

This become the notorious Mittelwerk production center, in which A-4 rockets (renamed V-2s by the Nazis for “vengeance weapon #2”) were built by slave labor in a last-ditch effort to safe Germany from defeat. In February 1944, Himmler, who had visited the Peenemünde center the previous summer, tried to lure von Braun’s support; when it was rebuffed, the Gestapo arrested him in the middle of the night.

Von Braun was kept in jail two weeks without any explanation as to why he had been arrested. Finally, he was hauled into before a mock trial, where the accusation was, “he did not intend the A-4 to be a weapon of war, that he had only space travel in mind ... and that he regretted its military use” (Ordway, 32).,,, From time to time, revisionists criticize von Braun for not defying the Nazi regime, which would surely have meant his death. Rumors surface that he was a secret Nazi collaborator, or a member of the Nazi party, etc. Those tempted to believe this should read the detailed account of the period in the book by Frederick Ordway (American long-time co-worker) and Ernst Stuhlinger (part of the Peenemünde team), Wernher von Braun, Crusader for Space (Krieger Publishing, Florida, 1996). These men both knew von Braun personally over many years and participated in the events. Von Braun was no Nazi. Since 1940, Himmler had tried to woo him with gifts and a rank in the SS, which von Braun confided with friends made him deeply upset. But with their advice, he avoided making an issue to prevent Himmler from flying into a rage. When sweet talk did not work, force was applied, and von Braun’s options were none: do as you are told, or die.,,, http://www.ministers-best-friend.com/SCIENCE-Von-Braun-Inventor-of-Rockets-Great-Christian--COURSE-CRE-SCI-420.html

Though nominally Lutheran from his childhood, Wernher von Braun appears to have gotten serious about his faith only later in life. Ordway says, “Throughout his younger years, von Braun did not show signs of religious devotion, or even an interest in things related to the church or to biblical teachings.

In fact, he was known to his friends as a ‘merry heathen’” (p. 270). In the days of Apollo, however, through the 1960s and 70s, “a new element began to surface in his conversations, and also in his speeches and his writings: a growing interest in religious thought.”

He was not overt or invasive about it, but it showed, and his scientific colleagues and the press appear somewhat baffled by it, treating it like some kind of personal quirk, something they did not expect from a leading rocket scientist pushing the limits of human achievement.

After the Apollo 11 success, for instance, a reporter asked him what he was thinking when he gave the final ‘yes’ for launch. The reporter must have been surprised at his unabashed answer, “I quietly said the Lord’s prayer.” Ordway comments that he could have been thinking of a dozen matters at that hectic moment, but his thought was, Thy will be done.,,,

In regards to creation vs. evolution, von Braun opposed the one-sided teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public schools. In 1972, he wrote a letter to the California School Board, which was considering a controversial bill on the teaching of evolution. He used his influence as a scientist and well-known public figure to argue that students need to hear the case for creation:

To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in the universe happened by chance-would violate the very objectivity of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?

Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence of a Designer... They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But, must we really light a candle to see the sun?

So what you are saying is things are not all black and white? I suspected that. I agree that it was difficult choice whether to actively participate with a regime which one knows is evil. I guess it was just bad luck for the people killed by the program he cooperated with,that he only became religious in his later days.

so vel, you claim he was a NAZI, I show you that he was not, and then, without even batting an eye at your mistake, you pass moral judgement on him anyway. And you do this all the while you are completely, obstinately, impervious to the fact that there is no moral basis within neo-Darwinism in which you can condemn even Hitler much less von Braun:

Can Darwinists Condemn Hitler and Remain Consistent with Their Darwinism? - Richard Weikart -October 27, 2011Excerpt: I'm happy, of course, that Flam thinks that charity and goodwill are better than violence and selfishness. I'm also glad that she thinks human life is precious. Her inconsistency rescues her from the nihilism implicit in her worldview. I much prefer such inconsistency to those who follow their nihilistic ideas with ruthless consistency. However, it would be even nicer if she were to embrace Christianity, which actually provides us with reasons to believe that human life has value, that loving your neighbors is superior to hating them, that acts of kindness are superior to acts of violence, and that Hitler was objectively evil. Then she would have a real reason to condemn Hitler. "I don't like Hitler because my evolved instincts run contrary to his" just doesn't cut it.http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/can_darwinists_condemn_hitler052331.html

Whereas Christianity, besides giving birth to modern science, continues to be the primary cultural source from which modern science draws its nourishment:

Bruce Charlton's Miscellany - October 2011Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be - if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2011/10/meeting-richard-dawkins-and-his-wife.html

Maybe you need a little more research, he was both a member of the Nazi party and a member of the SS. Need his membership serial numbers? So it is your mistake, if we were keeping score for some undetermined reason.

I still think you have a muddled argument. You claim that belief in natural processes in the area of life( why not physics) renders one a relativistic mess. Carson's argument. Ignoring again the existence of professed Christians who accept the theory. I asked you before, are they true Christians?

Thanks for the correction. At least the two weeks in jail part was correct. Seems he did indeed have some heavy sins laid at his feet when he finally got serious about his Christianity and return to a right relationship with God.

"Apparently von Braun had been under SD surveillance since October 1943. A report stated that he and his colleagues Riedel and Gröttrup were said to have expressed regret at an engineer's house one evening that they were not working on a spaceship

The unsuspecting von Braun was detained on March 14 (or March 15),[43] 1944 and was taken to a Gestapo cell in Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland),[42] where he was imprisoned for two weeks without even knowing the charges against him. It was only through the Abwehr in Berlin that Dornberger was able to obtain von Braun's conditional release and Albert Speer, Reichsminister for Munitions and War Production, convinced Hitler to reinstate von Braun so that the V-2 program could continue.[42] Quoting from the "Führerprotokoll" (the minutes of Hitler's meetings) dated May 13, 1944 in his memoirs, Speer later relayed what Hitler had finally conceded: "In the matter concerning B. I will guarantee you that he will be exempt from persecution as long as he is indispensable for you, in spite of the difficult general consequences this will have."- via wikipedia

vel, as far as you dancing around the moral dilemma of materialism, all I know is that you are a very moral person from the few short posts I've read of yours, always wanting to make judgements on this and that person, yet in your dancing the subject when pressed you refuse to deal forthrightly with the fact you have no objective moral basis. Simply put, It is impossible to for you to ground objective morals in a materialistic basis. You must, whether you admit it or not, appeal to a transcendent moral code. A transcendent moral code which is morally binding to all humans. If you have no such objective moral code to appeal to you have no right o condemn Hitler as evil! As Professor Richard Weikart put it so well, ""I don't like Hitler because my evolved instincts run contrary to his" just doesn't cut it."

vel, to try to drive the point home for you as to just how difficult it is for materialism to ground objective moral values, it is interesting to point out that the materialistic philosophy has a extremely difficult time assigning any proper value to humans at all in the first place, i.e. Just how do a person derive value for a person from a philosophy that maintains transcendent values, and even the mind, are illusory because we are merely material beings?:

How much is my body worth?Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar!http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/worth.asp

Whereas Theism, particularly Christianity, has no trouble whatsoever figuring out how much humans are worth, since infinite Almighty God has shown us how much we mean to him through Christ:

John 3:16“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

It does suck when what goes around comes around as von Braun found out. Luckily,unlike many others, he had value to the war effort beyond slave labor. So he was able to continue to aid the regime.

Are Christians who accept evolutionary theory materialists? Don't they have the same objective moral basis as you? Or are they not true Christians? Why the reluctance to answer,it will prove your point that even belief in the divinity of Jesus is overpowered by the acceptance of evolutionary theory.

vel, your still dancing around the primary issue. i.e. as soon as you define a moral basis in materialism then you shall have a 'evolutionary' standard by which to judge Hitler by. You cannot use the moral basis of Christianity, to argue against the evils of humans who, even if they were Christian, or claimed to be Christian, acted against the precepts of that Christian moral basis. i.e. Love God, Love your neighbor as yourself,,, As far as who believes in the reality of Christ of not, i.e. who is a 'true' Christian or not in your words, only God knows the hearts of men. ,,, So why the games vel? The subject is simple to understand, and yet you keep playing games. Please define your moral basis in materialism so as to justify your claim that Hitler was evil.

Note: for the purpose of collecting criticism, I have yet to present an explanation as to how evolutionary processes actually create knowledge. I'm merely clarifying that evolutionary processes wouldn't play the role of "building", anything as John suggested, since organisms build themselves.

In other words, it would be unreasonable to object to evolutionary theory due to the lack of an explanation of something it wouldn't have done in the first place: namely build biological adaptations. Right?

Last time checked, organisms build themselves. Or are you suggesting that each organism is hand built and designed, in real time, by an invisible, abstract designer that we cannot see?

If not, then evolution doesn't build organisms. Rather, the role it would play would be to create the knowledge of how to build organisms, which is located in the genome. Right?

And by knowledge, I mean any information that is significant in that tends to remain in a medium once placed there.

Specifically, biological features, including cellular mechanisms, represent adaptations. Adaptations represent transformations of matter. Transformations occur in when the requisite knowledge of how perform that transformation is present, along with the necessary energy, etc.

Again, given the continued claims that no explanation has been given, it would seem that someone must disagree with the above (or what will follow) in some specific way, which would be expressed in the form of criticism.

Otherwise, it seems the complaint that no explanation has been given is merely handwaving.

Ian said, "Once you admit a being with the power to override the laws of nature at will - or whim - the scientific enterprise becomes impossible."

---

A couple things in reply to you Ian and others:

First, I hear this a lot from evolutionists but I think it is a canard.

I think Philip Skell really nailed this canard well (thanks to BA77 for the previous link). Philip S. Skell was emeritus Evan Pugh professor of chemistry at Penn State University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Here's a link to his article in Forbes about the Dangers of Overselling Evolution:

Here are a few quotes. Don't have room for the whole article, but it is definitely worth reading his response to Jerry Coyne.

"Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss...

The essence of the theory of evolution is the hypothesis that historical diversity is the consequence of natural selection acting on variations. Regardless of the verity it holds for explaining biohistory, it offers no help to the experimenter--who is concerned, for example, with the goal of finding or synthesizing a new antibiotic, or how it can disable a disease-producing organism, what dosages are required and which individuals will not tolerate it. Studying biohistory is, at best, an entertaining distraction from the goals of a working biologist...

It is noteworthy that Darwin's and Wallace's theories of evolution have been enormously aggrandized since the 1850s. Through the writings of neo-Darwinian biologists, they have subsumed many of the biological experimental discoveries of the 20th century. This is so despite the fact that those discoveries were neither predicted nor heuristically guided by evolutionary theory."

The overselling of the theory of evolution, because of the incorporation of these later discoveries, may have done a grave disservice both to those two 19th-century scientists and to modern biology..."

Ian, the founding fathers of modern science usually held strong teleological views. This is a matter of history. Far from scientfiic research being about the "whims" of a creator, they were guided by a view that research could be valuable because the creator as described in the Bible was not whimsical, but his character and laws were consistent. Your concept of a whimsical creator is simply a strawman argument. Their immense contributions to modern science can't be reasonably denied and stand against your argument.

--

Second, "Once you admit a being with the power to override the laws of nature at will ..."

Like Boeing using aerodynamics to override the law of gravity?

Like biologists creating a kind of synthethic bacteria by replacing some of its DNA? Landing men on the moon used to be scientific fantasy. How many laws of nature were overriden by the Apollo project? That God can override laws of nature doesn't seem like a show stopper to me. At times God has been pleased to enable men to participate in overriding the laws of nature. We are made in His image, and have some of his attributes on a much smaller scaler.

Evolutionists talk a lot about conforming to the laws of nature, yet what they claim evolution has supposedly done seems to go way beyond the capability of unguided natural processes. If biologists ever create a basic life form from scratch, it will be described in very detailed intelligently designed terms. Do you deny this?

Scott, did you know that I skip reading most of what you say because you object to inductive reasoning? Conjecture and refutation might be an explanation of how DNA editing machinery arose, but until you list what the conjectures are, you don't have an explanation.

And even if you confirm or reject the conjectures now, that wouldn't have anything to do with whether or not they were confirmed or rejected in the past... according to Scott anyway. So maybe you need to ask yourself what type of evidence would convince you before you start demanding people jump through hoops you claim you don't even care about.

Neal: Regardless of the verity it holds for explaining biohistory, it offers no help to the experimenter--who is concerned, for example, with the goal of finding or synthesizing a new antibiotic, or how it can disable a disease-producing organism, what dosages are required and which individuals will not tolerate it. Studying biohistory is, at best, an entertaining distraction from the goals of a working biologist...

Actually, it's not.

For example, one strategy for treating bacterial infections is to use antibiotics, such as penicillin, which has been in use for decades. However, these drugs are useless against viral infections, including the common cold, and even deadly viruses such as Ebola.

Rather than trying to tailor treatments that target a specific virus, which has a limited application since new strains appear though genetic variations, researches have studied RNA produced by cells that are infected with a viruses and used that signature to target those cells with a protein that induces apoptosis.

One researcher commented on the project: “Viruses are pretty good at developing resistance to things we try against them, but in this case, it’s hard to think of a simple pathway to drug resistance,”

In other words, it's the explanation behind evolutionary theory that allows us to conclude "it’s hard to think of a simple pathway to drug resistance" to this particular approach, thus identifying it as a direction research that deserves further testing, including animal and even human trials. However, If the RNA signature changed when viruses mutated it's ability would be limited to existing viruses.

"Rider had the idea to combine a dsRNA-binding protein with another protein that induces cells to undergo apoptosis (programmed cell suicide) — launched, for example, when a cell determines it is en route to becoming cancerous. Therefore, when one end of the DRACO binds to dsRNA, it signals the other end of the DRACO to initiate cell suicide."

"Combining those two elements is a “great idea” and a very novel approach, says Karla Kirkegaard, professor of microbiology and immunology at Stanford University. “Viruses are pretty good at developing resistance to things we try against them, but in this case, it’s hard to think of a simple pathway to drug resistance,” she says."

Right. This suggests that virus adaption could be seriously limited.

Understanding natural selection, horizontal gene transfer, and point mutations in antibiotic resistance research has nothing to do with the fairy tales of the evolutionary biohistory of life. If neo-Darwinism would drop off the face of the earth all this antibiotic research would go forward without skipping a beat... perhaps some of the funding used for neo-Darwinism could be directed to the serious and practical sciences and result in faster development of medicine and therapy.

As I said to Elizabeth the other day, if the term evolution was dropped and we would just stick to very specific terms that are known and clearly defined most controversy would disappear. Evolutionists like to own every mechanism of biological change and then hijack the terms to build biohistory fairy tales.

Scott, it is precisely because scientists predict barriers and limitations to change in viruses that researchers are hopeful. It is because they do not evolve that it is difficult to see the virus becoming resistant. Of course, my definition of evolution is unbounded and directional biological change and yours includes everything that changes anything in biology.

One could wipe out all knowledge of neo-Darwinism with its superstitious story of the origin of species and it wouldn't have affected this research on iota. That's what Skell was saying. Natural selection, horizontal gene transfer and such could do quite well without the evolutionary straightjacket, thank you.

For example, a bear cannot evolve into a human being. This is because evolution in the sense that you're referring to includes a history of change. However, this doesn't mean that the evolution of bears are bounded.

In a similar sense, the article doesn't mean the evolution of a virus is bounded. It simply means that if the virus evolved in a way that resulted in the detected RNA signature not being generated in the target cell, then it's evolution would result in it no longer functioning as a virus. In other words, the approach isn't targeting the virus itself, but the technique a virus uses when invading as cell. If the virus evolved to in a way that modified the set of instructions that made it successful at invading cells, then it would no longer invade cells like a virus.

Specifically, this set of instructions is hard to vary without significantly impacting the virus' ability to invade a cell.

Other aspects of a virus' DNA are not as hard to vary. We know this because new viruses can evolve pathways of resistance to vaccines, while retaining their ability to invading cells. As such, these aspects can mutate without effecting it's ability to invade a cell.

To use an analogy, imagine we created a way to detect a signature whenever safe cracking tools were used by a safe cracker, regardless of where they were, then immobilized anyone in a 30 foot radius of that signature until we captured them. Some safecrackers could still "evolve" to stop using safe cracking tools, but then they would no longer be able to crack safes. They wouldn't have "evolved" a way to become resistant to capture for safe cracking because they evolved to no longer break into safes.

John: Scott, did you know that I skip reading most of what you say because you object to inductive reasoning? Conjecture and refutation might be an explanation of how DNA editing machinery arose, but until you list what the conjectures are, you don't have an explanation.

John, it seems you've skipped the part where I explicitly indicated I'm only presenting part of the explanation for the purpose of collecting criticism. Specifically, I'm attempting to figure out exactly where objections lie, in detail, assuming detailed objections actually exist.

So, again, do you have any objections to what I've presented so far?

For example, would you agree that your request for an explanation of how evolution builds anything isn't reasonable since because biological organisms build themselves?

If not, where does your objection lie?

As for my objection to induction reasoning, how this would prevent you from criticizing the explanation I've presented so far? In other words, this sort of response is precisely why I'm only presenting this explanation incrementally.

Dr Hunter continues to be amazed by relatively straightforward discoveries. I googled 'mRNA methylation' and got hits from articles published in the early 1970's.

When DNA is duplicated, there are enzymes that make sure each copy preserves the methylation of sites where methylation existed in the parent strand. Why is Dr Hunter amazed that similar enzymes exist to methylate mRNA copied off of the DNA? OOhh, 'real time' methylation! Real time methylation happens at every copy step.

Perhaps Dr Hunter had a mental model of mRNA floating about unmethylated until some supernatural process pushed the right enzymes up against it in just the right places... sorry, the process is just as prosaic and material as DNA methylation.

Is methylation a natural material process? Yes. Does it offer survival advantages? Yes.

Thorton: "John, you were so busy skipping Scott's posts that you completely forgot to give us the Intelligent Design mechanisms and explanations for the OP's described epigenics phenomenon."

Why would I do that? Who's the one boasting about how it's all so well understood? I'm the one arguing that evolutionists appear to be trading in caricatures of protein interactions that are much more complex than is let on. When you ask about tools and dies, it makes it seem like you don't really know much about the subject.

Thorton: "John, you were so busy skipping Scott's posts that you completely forgot to give us the Intelligent Design mechanisms and explanations for the OP's described epigenics phenomenon."

Why would I do that?

You would if you were honest and *could* provide an alternate explanation, especially since you demanded the same details from the evolutionary side. Why don't you like it when your same questions are asked of you in return?

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt but apparently you're just another rock throwing Creationist, long on bluster and woefully short on scientific knowledge. No intellectual honesty, no alternate explanation, no surprise.

Again, are you suggesting it's reasonable to object to what I've presented so far because it's incomplete, despite having explicitly indicated it's incomplete? Really?

John: No because I was already talking about the genome.

Of course you were talking about the genome. I'm pointing out that in doing so you were being unreasonable or confused about the role evolution plays.

Are you suggesting It's reasonable to demand an explanation of something evolution doesn't do because you "were already talking about the genome"? Or evolution does build things because "you were already talking about the genome"?

Neither of these things seem to make sense.

Again, the last time I checked, organisms build themselves by following instructions found in the genome. This includes building copies of entire cells, along with cellular mechanisms, strands of DNA, etc.

So, there is a distinction between building something and creating the knowledge of *how* to build something. Right?

If not, then what's your criticism. Please be specific.

John: Because it destroys all meaning, language, and reason. But besides that, I have no excuse.

Exactly how does induction create meaning, language and reason?

Also, isn't the usual argument that God creates meaning and reason, not induction? As such, it seems that you're objections represent an ad-hoc attempt to avoid presenting a detailed criticism.

So yet again we see a blustering Creationist making the same lame excuses for not providing any alternate explanations.

It's the same old, tired, dishonest tactic Creationists have used since day one. Claim "if science can't provide every single last detail down to the individual mutation, then EVERYTHING we know about evolutionary theory is wrong!!" And never, ever, under any circumstances offer any alternative mechanisms for the empirical observations.

Guess what John - science is never going to know every last detail of events that happened hundreds of millions of years ago. Some things are too far gone in time to accurately reconstruct. But we do know more than enough to figure out patterns, and fairly specific pathways, and overall results. You guys can't provide a single detail - no timeline, no mechanism, nothing. But that's what you demand we replace 150 years of scientific knowledge with.

"if science can't provide every single last detail down to the individual mutation, then EVERYTHING we know about evolutionary theory is wrong!!"

The trouble is that neo-Darwinists have not provided ANY details. Thorton How about providing JUST ONE SMALL DETAIL in order to falsify this Null Hypothesis?

The Law of Physicodynamic Insufficiency - Dr David L. Abel - November 2010Excerpt: “If decision-node programming selections are made randomly or by law rather than with purposeful intent, no non-trivial (sophisticated) function will spontaneously arise.”,,, After ten years of continual republication of the null hypothesis with appeals for falsification, no falsification has been provided. The time has come to extend this null hypothesis into a formal scientific prediction: “No non trivial algorithmic/computational utility will ever arise from chance and/or necessity alone.”http://www-qa.scitopics.com/The_Law_of_Physicodynamic_Insufficiency.html

A single functional protein generated by purely neo-Darwinian processes should fit the bill quite well as to providing JUST ONE SMALL DETAIL!

As well the ONE SMALL DETAIL of a molecular machine being generated by neo-Darwinian processes would be welcome:

Orr maintains that the theory of intelligent design is not falsifiable. He’s wrong. To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection. If that happened I would conclude that neither flagella nor any system of similar or lesser complexity had to have been designed. In short, biochemical design would be neatly disproved.- Dr Behe in 1997

Not really because you were asking about tools and dies which no one who was not "woefully short on scientific knowledge" would do unless they were just preparing to posture and bluster.

BTW John, I just tossed out the idea of tools and dies as a suggestion to you, since that's how humans manufacture things. If you have some other mechanisms in mind and can describe how your Magic Designer manufactured the things that It supposedly designed, please present them. Be aware the "POOF" just won't cut it in the scientific community.

Thorton another 'small detail' that would be crucial for you to establish your atheistic form of neo-Darwinism as 'scientific', would be for you to prove that materialism, the presupposition that undergirds atheistic neo-Darwinism is true. Yet one 'small detail' that prevents you from doing so is that advances in modern science have falsified a materialistic understanding of reality. Thus even if it could be shown that unlimited plasticity of species was true, as neo-Darwinism requires but empirics steadfastly denies, you still have not shown the neo-Darwinism to occur by purely 'undirected' processes. ,,, In fact reality is now known to be structured as this:

Thus Thorton, regardless of your vehement protestations to the contrary, the plain fact of the matter is that even if you could show that functional proteins could be had by 'chance and necessity' processes, you still are falsified of the 'self-sufficient' material basis for reality that you need to make your atheistic version of neo-Darwinism true.

Notes:

This tremendous amount of energy locked inside matter is clearly demonstrated by the detonation of atomic/nuclear bombs.

Quantum Teleportation – IBM Research PageExcerpt: “it would destroy the original (photon) in the process,,”http://researcher.ibm.com/view_project.php?id=2862

Quantum Evidence for a Theistic Universehttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1agaJIWjPWHs5vtMx5SkpaMPbantoP471k0lNBUXg0Xo/edit

Consciousness preceding quantum information is noted here:

the argument for God from consciousness can be framed like this:

1. Consciousness either preceded all of material reality or is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality. 2. If consciousness is a 'epi-phenomena' of material reality then consciousness will be found to have no special position within material reality. Whereas conversely, if consciousness precedes material reality then consciousness will be found to have a special position within material reality. 3. Consciousness is found to have a special, even central, position within material reality. 4. Therefore, consciousness is found to precede material reality.

Three intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material realityhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit

Thorton: "So yet again we see a blustering Creationist making the same lame excuses for not providing any alternate explanations."

Sorry, but to have an alternate explanation, you need to already have one explanation. You don't have an explanation, and my position is that the real explanation would take nearly a lifetime to read and be so complex as to be incomprehensible to the human mind (since it partly explains the human mind). For you to trade in simplistic jargon like tools and dies confirms that you don't know much about the subject.

John: Sorry, but to have an alternate explanation, you need to already have one explanation.

Again, It's not clear that we haven't provided an explanation, as we haven't see any sort of clear criticism. For example, see your responses above.

John: and my position is that the real explanation would take nearly a lifetime to read and be so complex as to be incomprehensible to the human mind (since it partly explains the human mind). For you to trade in simplistic jargon like tools and dies confirms that you don't know much about the subject.

First, you seem to think that explanations must be exhaustive. Yet progress doesn't come to us in the form of exhaustive explanations. Rather, progress comes in the form of chains of hard to vary explanations and always results in new, unanswered questions. This isn't anything new.

Second, are you saying such an explanation is impossible for us today in principle or in practice? Or do you even make a distinction? If so, why?

Thorton: "BTW John, I just tossed out the idea of tools and dies as a suggestion to you, since that's how humans manufacture things. If you have some other mechanisms in mind and can describe how your Magic Designer manufactured the things that It supposedly designed, please present them.

How could you understand what created your understanding? These machines and their integration are so complex that they support the mind. Who is going to take you seriously when you talk about tool and die?

Thorton: "So yet again we see a blustering Creationist making the same lame excuses for not providing any alternate explanations."

Sorry, but to have an alternate explanation, you need to already have one explanation.

Science has one, just not to the ridiculous level of detail you Creationists constantly demand. A perfectly workable one that explains the empirical evidence. You don't even seem able to produce even a semblance of a mechanism for your POOF manufacturing claims.

my position is that the real explanation would take nearly a lifetime to read and be so complex as to be incomprehensible to the human mind (since it partly explains the human mind).

More power to you if you're happy in your ignorance. If you'll excuse us, we in the scientific community will keep researching.

For you to trade in simplistic jargon like tools and dies confirms that you don't know much about the subject

Then supply your own terms. Apparently I know more than a clueless Creationist who refuses to even speculate on a mechanism.

The evolutionists insist that there must be a mechanism because they say that the mechanistic view of the world wins by default. Creationists don't require a mechanism by definition because they don't insist on a mechanisticview. When a creationist asks for the mechanism he is playing by your rules.

Are you saying that we don't need a mechanism if we don't insist on a purely mechanistic view of the world? Is your pin that saying "God did it" is acceptable, it just doesn't explain the evidence as well?

He brings up the good point that biologists are already manipulating the information in DNA to produce new biological functions. Evolutionists ask for a mechanism for biological change by intelligent designers. Well, their it is.

So I think this debate is going to take another turn away from evolutionists. As evolutionists continue to point to bird beak sizes and guppie colors as proof that we all evolved from pond scum, biologists will be doing lots of major biological change using intelligently designed manipulation of the information in DNA to bring about major functional changes. The future of biosystem research is owned by intelligent design whether biologists want to take the title or not.

He brings up the good point that biologists are already manipulating the information in DNA to produce new biological functions.

Unless Luskin really means to imply that the designer works only by modifying pre-existing life forms, that's a pretty stupid point to make. Perhaps he is an undercover Raëlian?

Also, is the designer using recombinant DNA technology? Does it use primers, restriction enzymes, and lots of such sciency stuff to work? 'Cause if the designer works with magic, the human technology analogue doesn't work very well.

The future of biosystem research is owned by intelligent design whether biologists want to take the title or not.

Oh, I see. Experiments are intelligently designed, so whatever we discover from them must be intelligently designed. How blind was I.

Geoxus said, "'Cause if the designer works with magic, the human technology analogue doesn't work very well."

--

Who said the designer works with magic? Not I. What these experiments demonstrate is that intelligent design mechanisms are not magic or beyond explanation. While we can never know exactly what procedure God used to create life, we can know that valid and detailed explanations for intelligent design mechanisms not only exist but are being implemented in labs. The science seems so much more practical and solid than the willy nilly speculations that evolutionists often use

--

You said, " Experiments are intelligently designed, so whatever we discover from them must be intelligently designed."

It is more than intelligently designed experiments. My reference was specifically to the manipulation of DNA information by intelligent design to produce functional change We have a valid intelligent design mechanism. Coming from an IT background, I might be a little prejudice in my viewpoint, but it doesn't seem to me too hard to think that God could take basic biosystem platforms, utilize a common set of coding standards and produce a great variety of life. Perhaps he purposely built into his design things that he wanted us to learn from. The valid mechanism for design is there and it has so much more potential than natural selection and mutation.

Then why don't you explain how knowledge is created, then point out how evolutionary process do not fit that explanation.

If you think no such explanation is possible, then it would seem that knowledge of how to build the biosphere was spontaneously generated, which would be magic, or that some designer, "just was", complete with the knowledge of how to build the biosphere, already present, which serves no explanatory purpose.

Scott, I guess you have an alternative in the answer as to the origin of first knowledge.

1. God2. Absolutely nothing

--

As far as explanations, evolutionists prefer to exaggerate the claims of what natural selection and mutation actually do. It is a closed minded society of people pretending that everything fits into their worldview.

As I previously said, intelligent design procedures have been implemented to manipulate the information in DNA to bring about significant functional change. Who did this? Intelligent designers. What's the explanation? The procedures that they documented to implement their strategy. They are probably in the process of getting a patent on their work. How is all of their documentation not a explanation?

Why would I need such a thing? I'm not a justificationist. Nor do I subscribe to a pre-enlightement, authoritative conception of human human knowledge.

From the Wikipedia entry on Critical Rationalism ...

William Warren Bartley compared critical rationalism to the very general philosophical approach to knowledge which he called "justificationism". Most justificationists do not know that they are justificationists. Justificationism is what Popper called a "subjectivist" view of truth, in which the question of whether some statement is true, is confused with the question of whether it can be justified (established, proven, verified, warranted, made well-founded, made reliable, grounded, supported, legitimated, based on evidence) in some way.

He brings up the good point that biologists are already manipulating the information in DNA to produce new biological functions. Evolutionists ask for a mechanism for biological change by intelligent designers. Well, their it is.

Not A mechanism produced by humans. THE mechanism that was actually used by the Magic Designer when he built all this 'life' stuff at some unknown time in the past.

Scott: "Again, are you suggesting it's reasonable to object to what I've presented so far because it's incomplete, despite having explicitly indicated it's incomplete? Really?"

But just above you say :"Again, It's not clear that we haven't provided an explanation, as we haven't see any sort of clear criticism. For example, see your responses above."

Sounds like you aren't sure what you've presented. Get back to me when you figure that out.

Scott: "Of course you were talking about the genome. I'm pointing out that in doing so you were being unreasonable or confused about the role evolution plays. "

Why? You yourself said, "Rather, it creates the knowledge of how to build organisms, which is located in the genome. Right?" Why do you criticize me and then say the exact same thing?

Scott: "Are you suggesting It's reasonable to demand an explanation of something evolution doesn't do because you "were already talking about the genome"? Or evolution does build things because "you were already talking about the genome"?

Neither of these things seem to make sense. "

But evolution does build genomes (supposedly) which is what you acknowledged I was talking about and you yourself said. Why work so hard to be confused?

Scott: "So, there is a distinction between building something and creating the knowledge of *how* to build something. Right? "

Except that DNA has machines that also build it. So maybe not. Depends on what part of the comparison you find significant I guess.

Scott: "If not, then what's your criticism. Please be specific. "

My criticism was that perhaps the reason why no-one was objecting to your soon to be announced theory is because you reject inductive reasoning.

Scott: "Exactly how does induction create meaning, language and reason?"

Careful now, my statement was equivalent to "if not p then not q", but you are asking me how "if p then q". Are you going to be more careful?

Didn't you just say you still wanted to flesh things out a bit more first? Shouldn't you decide whether or not you want criticism before you attack me for not providing it?

Scott: "Second, are you saying such an explanation is impossible for us today in principle or in practice? Or do you even make a distinction? If so, why?"

Depending on how integrated these particular epigenetic components are to the mind, it may only be impossible in practice. But if they are fully integrated, then every other part would need to be understood to comprehend the full affect of the component in question. That would be impossible in principle since you would always need at a minimum one more component outside a previously described instance of the mind in which to comprehend it.

Scott: "For you to think progress comes in the form of exhaustive explanations that results in no new questions confirms that you do not know what progress is."

Nowhere between this and where you seemed to still be inquisitive and said, "First, you seem to think that explanations must be exhaustive" did I say ANYTHING AT ALL!

Scott: "For example. "That's just what the designer wanted" isn't progress. It's the antithesis of progress.

Unless it's true. If it's true and you accept it, you are making progress.

It's the equivalent of pushing one's food around on their plate and claiming they've ate it. Yet it's still there starting them in the face."

Are you saying that progress only comes in the form of exhaustive explanations that result in no new questions? Weird that you would complain about that above but then demand it here.

Also, it's kind of like saying, "this just goes to show evolution must have done it this way" as the journals constantly report.

Again, I'm only presenting it incrementally for the purpose of understanding exactly where disagreement lies. It's all too common for things to get off track, such as what's happening now. As such, I'm presenting what I think represents a common starting point to determine where, if anywhere, there is disagreement.

If we cannot find a common starting point, then it's pointless to continue.

However, if you skipped over what I wrote so far because I "object to the use of induction", then you cannot disagree or agree with something you haven't read.

Scott: "As for my objection to induction reasoning, how this would prevent you from criticizing the explanation I've presented so far?"

John: Because it destroys all meaning, language, and reason. But besides that, I have no excuse.

You seem be working under a common misconception of Popperians. Specifically, It's not that I object to the use of induction. It's that no one has ever managed to formulate a ‘principle of induction’ that is usable in practice for obtaining scientific theories from experiences.

See the Wiipedia entry on the problem of induction here and an excerpt from David Deutsch's book The Beginning of Infinityhere, which elaborate on this in more detail.

However, this doesn't "destroy" anything, but merely indicates that conclusions in these areas were reached by some other means that induction.

For example, just because I think the use of induction is a myth, this doesn't mean that bridges are hazards that need to be redesigned unless those that designed them were Popperians. Rather, I think that non-Popperians merely thought they used induction to build them.

Scott: "For example. "That's just what the designer wanted" isn't progress. It's the antithesis of progress.

John: Unless it's true. If it's true and you accept it, you are making progress.

A designer that "just was", compete with the knowledge of how to build DNA repair mechanisms, already present, serves no explanatory purpose. This is because one could more economically state that organisms, "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how go build DNA repair mechanisms, already present.

In other words, unless you explain the origin of the knowledge the designer supposedly put in the genome, then you're not making progress. This is the starting point I'm referring to.

You might consider this progress in reconciling your specific theological beliefs about what God supposedly did or did not do, but that's not the question at hand. The question is, an explanation for biological complexity we observe in the biosphere.

John: Depending on how integrated these particular epigenetic components are to the mind, it may only be impossible in practice. But if they are fully integrated, then every other part would need to be understood to comprehend the full affect of the component in question. That would be impossible in principle since you would always need at a minimum one more component outside a previously described instance of the mind in which to comprehend it.

This presupposes an explanation for biological complexity necessary entails minds, and that we'd need to explain minds in their entirety, along with some additional component behind the mind as well, which you seem to think is impossible.

Does this not fit the explanation of an exhaustive explanation?

So, again, you seem to be assuming that an explanation in the case of biological complexity must be exhaustive or they are not explanations.

However, progress doesn't come to us in in the form you described. Nor does progress take the form of explanations that would take more than a lifetime to read. Rather, it comes in the form of hard to vary explanations, independently developed across separate fields.

As such, it's unclear why an explanation must be as extensive as your suggesting.

Scott: "and that we'd need to explain minds in their entirety, along with some additional component behind the mind as well,"

that depends on the level of integration of the functions of the proteins in question. If they are very isolated or work in closed loops, then the explanation would be simpler.

Scott: "which you seem to think is impossible."

It is almost certainly impossible in practice. If the level of integration blooms rather than wanes, then it would be impossible in principle also.

Does this not fit the explanation of an exhaustive explanation? "

Technically no. But I'm sure it would be physically exhausting, if that's what you're referring to.

Scott: "So, again, you seem to be assuming that an explanation in the case of biological complexity must be exhaustive or they are not explanations."

Sorry you feel that way. But the reason you don't have an explanation is not because the phrase "natural selection with random mutation" isn't exhaustive, but because it doesn't explain the first thing about what we see. You cannot derive ONE PROTEIN of all we see in life from any of the phrases evolutionists throw around.

Scott: "However, progress doesn't come to us in in the form you described."

You never learned anything from a teacher or a designer?

Scott: "Nor does progress take the form of explanations that would take more than a lifetime to read."

If you could understand it all together after reading it, that would be AMAZING progress. Perhaps you just mean it's not practical?

Scott: "Rather, it comes in the form of hard to vary explanations, independently developed across separate fields"

ToE seems quite easy to vary. It varies every day.

Scott: "As such, it's unclear why an explanation must be as extensive as your suggesting."

"An" explanation would not need to be as extensive as "the" explanation. But if the functions are very integrated, then any explanation might lack coherence until a point after which so much information was described, that it would be incomprehensible.

Scott: "A designer that "just was", compete with the knowledge of how to build DNA repair mechanisms, already present, serves no explanatory purpose"

John: It would seem to explain the order present in life. Maybe you could then ask the designer more particular questions. Or you might watch as more things are designed.

Scott: "This is because one could more economically state that organisms, "just appeared" complete with the knowledge of how go build DNA repair mechanisms, already present."

John: but then you lack an explanation for the observed order.

- Sigh - You're so close. It's as if you see the problem, but simply refuse to recognize it in the case of your preferred designer.

My point is, the observed "order" your referring to is explained by the knowledge the designer would have possessed.

Everything exists in some kind of order. Randomly dealt cards necessarily exist in some specific order. So, you're not just referring to any kind of order. You're referring to biological adaptations that are well adapted to perform a specific purpose.

Again, from the starting point which I have yet to receive any real, detailed criticism…

… biological features, including cellular mechanisms that copy and repair DNA/RNA, represent adaptations. Adaptations represent transformations of matter. Transformations occur in when the requisite knowledge of how perform that transformation is present, along with the necessary energy, etc.

Right?

As such, the origin of these adaptations is the origin of that knowledge. However, if the origin of this designer's knowledge doesn't "need" to be explained, then why would the origin of the knowledge found in the genome "need" to be explained?

In other words, why do you recognize the origin of the knowledge needs to be explained in the case of the genome, but not in the case of the designer?

Do biological adaptations not represent transformations of matter? Can these transformations occur without knowledge of how to perform them being present? Exactly, where does my starting point break down.

The thing is, I don't think anyone here can point to anything specific because they do not actually have a detailed objection. That's my explanation as to why obtaining any kind of criticism is like pulling teeth.

John: Depending on how integrated these particular epigenetic components are to the mind, it may only be impossible in practice. But if they are fully integrated, then every other part would need to be understood to comprehend the full affect of the component in question. That would be impossible in principle since you would always need at a minimum one more component outside a previously described instance of the mind in which to comprehend it.

Of course you don't. That's because you do not see your conception of God as an idea that would be subject to criticism.

If the knowledge of how to build DNA repair mechanisms in the cell truly was created by evolutionary processes as a form of non-explanatory knowledge, then the explanation doesn't need to explain minds. As such, the assumption that any explanation of the biological complexity we observe is necessarily impossible in practice assumes that the explanation necessarily entails minds.

Scott: Does this not fit the explanation of an exhaustive explanation?

John: Technically no. But I'm sure it would be physically exhausting, if that's what you're referring to.

John: It is almost certainly impossible in practice. If the level of integration blooms rather than wanes, then it would be impossible in principle also.

Then exactly what is the difference between an exhaustive explanation and what you described? Please be specific.

John: … [T]he reason you don't have an explanation is not because the phrase "natural selection with random mutation" isn't exhaustive, but because it doesn't explain the first thing about what we see. You cannot derive ONE PROTEIN of all we see in life from any of the phrases evolutionists throw around.

Then kindly point out where you disagree with the staring point I've outline. Surely, you must have some detailed criticism, right?

Scott: "However, progress doesn't come to us in in the form you described."

John: You never learned anything from a teacher or a designer?

This is a transparent attempt to equivocate on the sort of progress we're actually discussing here.

Teachers relay progress, which comes to human beings in the form of hard to vary explanations, independently developed across separate fields. In addition, progress results in new unanswered questions. If it didn't then it would end out ability to progress.

John: ToE seems quite easy to vary. It varies every day.

That's because, apparently, you do not understand the underlying expiation behind predictions made by evolutionary theory.

John: "An" explanation would not need to be as extensive as "the" explanation. But if the functions are very integrated, then any explanation might lack coherence until a point after which so much information was described, that it would be incomprehensible.

Theories are conjectures based on background knowledge. Background knowledge is familiar and current uncontroversial knowledge.

This is why I keep asking for detailed criticism on the starting point I've posted.

Not impossible, just unlikely enough so that it is more likely to be caused by something we don't yet understand.

And you determined this unlikeliness exactly...how? Please show your work.

If people laugh at you because you don't make things up, then perhaps you're in the wrong community of "scientists".

We laugh at Creationists because they do make things up, like the stupid strawman caricatures of ToE they like to attack.

That type of speculation requires enough details so that it can be tested. I say you don't have the details and therefore cannot test the hypothesis.

Funny then that a Google Scholar search on "epigenetics' returns over 63,000 hits. Looks like somebody's out there testing while the Creationists are sitting on their lazy duffs doing nothing.

Which topic? Copying or authoring? A protein or an already existing genome? Dies and their associated tools or something less absurd like templates?

The topic was manufacturing methods, remember? You are still completely ignorant of them.

You are like a scientologist, you have super secret knowledge that when anyone questions, they immediately launch a counter attack to distract from the answer

No, I'm just a member of the scientific community who is sick and tired of ignorant Creationists like you attacking things you don't understand, and claiming that all scientists whose research supports evolutionary theory must be hopelessly incompetent or deliberate frauds.

I hit back against such willful dishonesty. Tough if it gets your panties in a bunch.

Because 100% of all other machinery I've ever seen end up being designed and there is no shortage of data in the universe to indicate what randomness can build.

Thorton: "We laugh at Creationists because they do make things up, like the stupid strawman caricatures of ToE they like to attack."

Even a straw man explanation for these proteins would be better than what you've offered.

Thorton: "Funny then that a Google Scholar search on "epigenetics' returns over 63,000 hits. Looks like somebody's out there testing while the Creationists are sitting on their lazy duffs doing nothing."

Did you manage to glean a hypothesis to test from all that? Or does having the word epigenetics used 63,000 times give you as much comfort as the topic being old gives to EL?

Thorton: "The topic was manufacturing methods, remember? You are still completely ignorant of them."

I only started by asking the real scientists for enlightenment.

Thorton: "No, I'm just a member of the scientific community who is sick and tired of ignorant Creationists like you attacking things you don't understand, and claiming that all scientists whose research supports evolutionary theory must be hopelessly incompetent or deliberate frauds."

You're free to offer the evolutionary explanation for this protein... or any protein really, at any time you wish. Obviously since you understand enough to claim I don't, you are the one I'm looking for. I'm sorry you feel that I've attacked the yet to be presented evolutionary explanation for this.

Thorton: "I hit back against such willful dishonesty. Tough if it gets your panties in a bunch."

On behalf of Eugenie Scott I award you the title "Warrior of Light". Shine on Thorton!

Because 100% of all other machinery I've ever seen end up being designed and there is no shortage of data in the universe to indicate what randomness can build.

So all you've got is ignorance based personal incredulity. What a surprise.

1. Biological life isn't machinery. Human produced machinery is used as an analogy for biological life, but analogies aren't reality.

2. ToE doesn't posit that evolution produces new species solely through randomness. Evolution works as a feedback process with a random component (genetic variation) and a decidedly non-random part (selection) which produces complex results.

See John, it's exactly that kind of blustering ignorance from Creationists like you that's so exasperating.

Even a straw man explanation for these proteins would be better than what you've offered.

Try reading some of the huge amounts of scientific literature on the subject instead of Answers In Genesis.

Did you manage to glean a hypothesis to test from all that? Or does having the word epigenetics used 63,000 times give you as much comfort as the topic being old gives to EL?

You're the ignorant guy who claimed there was no research being done, remember? What hypotheses do *you* suppose all those papers are testing? That's right, you don't have the ability to comprehend anything scientific, I forgot.

You're free to offer the evolutionary explanation for this protein... or any protein really, at any time you wish.

You really are completely ignorant of the scientific work. Feel free to read this and other research by Carroll / Ortland / Thornton and tell me why they got everything wrong.

On behalf of Eugenie Scott I award you the title "Warrior of Light". Shine on Thorton!

On behalf of all the honest working scientists in the world who you insult with your ignorance based attacks, I award you the "One More Mouthy Ignorant Creationist" gold star. Stay in the gutter with the rest of the willfully ignorant John!

Thorton: "By studying the subject, doing research, forming hypotheses, performing experiments, learning from the results. The same as with any other topic in science."

But then how in turn could you understand what made your mind want to do that? Do you agree that it might be impossible for one mind to contain the explanation?

Thorton: "Why do you think just because you lack the capability to understand that everyone else must lack the capability too?"

I don't. I already listed the actual reason.

Thorton: "So? Just because a phenomenon is complex means we should give up, fall to our knees and shout "GAWDDIDIT!!"?"

No, you would get tired if you did that.

Thorton: "Then you tell me by what mechanism the manufacturing was done. You've dodged the question four times now."

I answered back on May 23, 2012 10:42 AM. Why are you making things up? Start reading at "my position is" and you will realize what my position is. I'm starting to wonder if your mind was indeed created with tool and die. You may have something there.

Thorton: "Then you tell me by what mechanism the manufacturing was done. You've dodged the question four times now."

I answered back on May 23, 2012 10:42 AM.

No John, you didn't. You posted a reply to the effect that the mechanism was unknowable but not an answer, a description of a mechanism.

Once again, you claim it's impossible for you know the answer but still you somehow *do* know my suggestion of tools is wrong. Besides being ignorant in genetics you don't understand the first thing about logic either.

Thorton: "No John, you didn't. You posted a reply to the effect that the mechanism was unknowable but not an answer, a description of a mechanism."

Which is not dodging. If I ask you how many fingers I'm holding up and you say, "I don't know", are you dodging the question? Are you trying to distract me from the fact that you don't have the answer either?

Thorton: "Once again, you claim it's impossible for you know the answer but still you somehow *do* know my suggestion of tools is wrong."

it was more about the die, I thought that was funny. but again, I don't know that some kind of evolution isn't possible, it just seems extremely unlikely and far less likely than intentional design.

Thorton: "Besides being ignorant in genetics you don't understand the first thing about logic either."

Have a go at this with your logic: "I don't know who is typing what you post, but I know it's not my son." Since you know at least one thing about logic that causes you to object to this type of reasoning, please let me know what it is.

Have a go at this with your logic: "I don't know who is typing what you post, but I know it's not my son." Since you know at least one thing about logic that causes you to object to this type of reasoning, please let me know what it is.

Wrong analogy John.

A much better one is : The police have arrested your son for burglary. They have his DNA and fingerprints found at the crime scene. They have matching footprints and soil from the scene found on his shoes. They have fiber traces matching his clothes. They have a surveillance video of him leaving the scene at 3AM with his arms full of loot, and they caught him red-handed with all the loot stashed in his apartment.

You come along and scream "I don't know where he was that night but I know it couldn't my son. He wouldn't do such a thing!"

It will take more than just your personal incredulity to convince the authorities they've got it wrong. But you expect to convince scientists they've had it all wrong about ToE despite having 150+ years of positive evidence just due to your ignorance based beliefs.

Thorton shows his ignorance when he writes:"Maybe the ignorant Creationist can tell us how to test a new vaccine if we have to allow for a whimsical supernatural entity changing the effects with every test. One day the vaccine cures the common cold and the next day it's a deadly poison. How does health and medical research proceed when the results can never be trusted?"

An ignorant creationist tests a new vaccine exactly like an intelligent atheist does. When dealing with the present, our approach is the same. It is when it comes to the unseen past that our approach differs and our worldview influences our interpretation of the evidence.

You don't seem to understand that it is exactly because God is a God of order that we have laws of nature. The evolutionist cannot explain the laws of nature, but the creationist can. The Bible tells us that God upholds the universe. Can He suspend the laws of nature to do miracles? Sure, but this is a rare thing and He is not capricious. His creation reflects His glory and He promises that the seasons will not cease until the end of the world. He has created this world in such a way that science is possible and He expects us to study nature, learn from it, and use what He has created as we see fit. The idea of a God of order was foundational for many of the great early scientists(many of whom were of course believers). And low and behold, did it hinder scientific progress? No. It spurred science on. Great strides were made and we are still in the debt of many of these men.

You don't seem to understand that it is exactly because God is a God of order that we have laws of nature. The evolutionist cannot explain the laws of nature, but the creationist can. The Bible tells us that God upholds the universe. Can He suspend the laws of nature to do miracles? Sure, but this is a rare thing and He is not capricious. His creation reflects His glory and He promises that the seasons will not cease until the end of the world.

"Maybe the ignorant Creationist can tell us how to test a new vaccine if we have to allow for a whimsical supernatural entity changing the effects with every test. One day the vaccine cures the common cold and the next day it's a deadly poison. How does health and medical research proceed when the results can never be trusted?"

Doesn't this happen all the time? Scientists develop a drug, they market it, and then it turns out to be harmful, and we get recalls and lawsuits.

Thorton: "Maybe the ignorant Creationist can tell us how to test a new vaccine if we have to allow for a whimsical supernatural entity changing the effects with every test. One day the vaccine cures the common cold and the next day it's a deadly poison. How does health and medical research proceed when the results can never be trusted?"

Doesn't this happen all the time? Scientists develop a drug, they market it, and then it turns out to be harmful, and we get recalls and lawsuits.

No nat, I don't know of a single case where it was demonstrated that a supernatural Loki God came along after the fact and changed the effects of a drug. Do you?

So what exactly does happen? Scientists do all this sciency stuff and determine that the drug is effective and safe. Then it turns out that it has all the bad side effects or whatever. I don't know if it is divine intervention, but it looks like we can never be sure if we can trust the results of medical research.

So what exactly does happen? Scientists do all this sciency stuff and determine that the drug is effective and safe. Then it turns out that it has all the bad side effects or whatever. I don't know if it is divine intervention, but it looks like we can never be sure if we can trust the results of medical research.

I find it mildly amusing to watch the TV commercials for drugs where they have to include absurdly long lists of potential side-effects. After that, I'd have to say anyone who thinks all approved drugs are absolutely safe and effective just hasn't been paying attention.

You don't seem to understand that it is exactly because God is a God of order that we have laws of nature. The evolutionist cannot explain the laws of nature, but the creationist can.

No, they can't.

You don't seem to understand what an explanation is.

When creationists demand that evolutionists explain the laws of nature, they want to know how they came about. They want a detailed, step-by-step account of the process by which they came into existence.

What creationists offer as an alternative is God. That's not how, that's who. You might as well say that Mr. Mxyzptlk did it for all it tells about how it was done.

Geoxus said, "'Cause if the designer works with magic, the human technology analogue doesn't work very well."

--

Who said the designer works with magic? Not I. What these experiments demonstrate is that intelligent design mechanisms are not magic or beyond explanation. While we can never know exactly what procedure God used to create life, we can know that valid and detailed explanations for intelligent design mechanisms not only exist but are being implemented in labs. The science seems so much more practical and solid than the willy nilly speculations that evolutionists often use

--

You said, " Experiments are intelligently designed, so whatever we discover from them must be intelligently designed."

It is more than intelligently designed experiments. My reference was specifically to the manipulation of DNA information by intelligent design to produce functional change We have a valid intelligent design mechanism. Coming from an IT background, I might be a little prejudice in my viewpoint, but it doesn't seem to me too hard to think that God could take basic biosystem platforms, utilize a common set of coding standards and produce a great variety of life. Perhaps he purposely built into his design things that he wanted us to learn from. The valid mechanism for design is there and it has so much more potential than natural selection and mutation.

Cornelius, aside from the arguments about evolution, I wonder if you have a view on whether its credible that genes contain all the information an organism needs to function. The more we discover about the intricate processes going on in the cell, and on every level of scale, the more there seems to be going on. What's coordinating it all so intricately?

Seems as though most people, whether IDers or evolutionists or whatever, seems to see organisms as mechanisms. I wonder if you have an opinion.

So, In response to John's feedback, does anyone have any criticism for the following starting point, from which the rest of an explanation will be presented?

Please be specific.

The role that evolution would play, if it played one at all, is to create the knowledge use to build specific biological adaptations. This is because organisms build themselves using the instructions found in the genome, which I'm referring to here as knowledge.

Specifically, biological features, including cellular mechanisms that copy and repair DNA/RNA, represent adaptations. Adaptations represent transformations of matter. Transformations occur in when the requisite knowledge of how perform that transformation is present, along with the necessary energy, etc.

If we cannot agree on a starting point from which to build on, then we're not going to make progress. So, I'm looking for details objections to the above, assuming detailed objections actually exist, before moving on.

Again, it's unreasonable for individual to claim an explanation hasn't been provided when they refuse to provide criticism of a starting point from which the rest of an explanation can be presented.

EL: "but the OP implies that regulation of gene expression is some problem for evolutionary theory, whereas the opposite is the case."

So you admit that my characterization of your claim is correct? You are basically saying that "given the existence of these regulatory systems, evolution can now do X". Why don't you see that he is asking for how random mutation could ever produce something as complex and deeply integrated as these machines?

EL: "I have no idea why Cornelius thinks that regulation of gene expression should be a problem."

Many evolutionists like to turn the conversation away from "how did this protein evolve" to "once this protein evolved, look at the possibilities". Are you one of those?

Why don't you see that he is asking for how random mutation could ever produce something as complex and deeply integrated as these machines?

No one in science says or thinks that random mutations alone created complex proteins.

Evolution is a long term iterative process that uses random (wrt fitness) genetic variation filtered by NON-random (i.e. non uniform probability distribution) selection, the net result of which is to cause the beneficial changes to collect and form into complex structures.

Why don't you learn at least a tiny bit about what the actual theory IS before sticking your other foot in your mouth.

Then maybe you should take a few weeks and get a five year old to show you how to use a dictionary. That or make up a few more sockpuppets for entertainment, since you seem to enjoy playing with yourself.

Young children are good at many things. Some like to play with toys. Some like to draw. Some like to use words bigger than they can truly comprehend in order offer a pretense of fitting into their environment. When they are confronted about the inappropriate use of the word, some turn bashful. Some get embarrassed. Some throw a tantrum and refuse to admit their wrong.

The latter are usually the children that have problems maintaining a firm latch upon reality and begin justifying their existence from a purely ego-centric modality. They find it hard to make and keep friends. When they do, the friendship is many times nothing more than a series of juvenile role-play scenarios involving various forms of abuse where the goal is to give the abuser the relevance they feel that they are due. It is always interesting to watch this play out in latter life situations where tangential references to "lots of competitive sports in my youth" serve as justification for continuing the cycle. Even more so when the abuser becomes so detached from reality that they think themselves the victim, rendering any attempt at conversation beyond superficiality a personal assault upon their relevance as a member of existence.

Some would assail the individual's parentage - he wasn't held enough. His father was too harsh. Others would say that the individual did not inherit the appropriate mental capacity to properly reason with the world, thus driving life choices that seem or are compensatory, physically or otherwise.

Don't mind Smith - he's just in a funk because his childish attempts to troll the adults failed so badly. It was hilarious though that he was so desperate for attention he pretended to be too stupid to know the difference between design and manufacture.

At least I *think* he was pretending. Hard to tell with an immature teenage mindset like that.

Thorton it seems that you like to deride anyone who doesn't believe as you do in a atheistic-materialistic worldview as ignorant. Do you hold this man as ignorant:

My Experience in Coma Eben Alexander III, MD, FACSExcerpt: My coma taught me many things. First and foremost, near-death experiences, and related mystical states of awareness, reveal crucial truths about the nature of existence. And the reductive materialist (physicalist) model, on which conventional science is based, is fundamentally flawed. At its core, it intentionally ignores what I believe is the fundament of all existence — the nature of consciousness.http://www.aansneurosurgeon.org/210212/6/1611

Eben Alexander III, MD, FACS, served on the faculty of Harvard Medical School for almost 15 years, achieving the rank of associate professor by 1994. He has helped promote the development of stereotactic radiosurgery, intraoperative MR imaging and MRI-guided focused ultrasound surgery in neurosurgery.

And Thorton if you believe that he is ignorant, exactly why do you believe him to be ignorant? i.e. Exactly why do you proclaim yourself to be wiser than he is? Indeed why do you proclaim atheists to be wiser than the vast majority of the world's population who believe in some form of Theistic based-Consciousness based reality?

Thorton: "filtered by NON-random (i.e. non uniform probability distribution) selection, the net result of which is to cause the beneficial changes to collect and form into complex structures."

or to form simpler structures. Do you need examples?

Of course the evolutionary process can work to form simpler structures from complex ones if the selection pressure favors the simpler. That's why cave fish have non-functional eyes and cetaceans lost their legs. Those functions were no longer beneficial in the animals' current environment. Do you think that's some great cosmic revelation to science?

Do you have an answer for the princess and the pea analogy I posed to EL?

What exactly do you think needs answering?

I notice you have nothing to say about all those references to scientific research on epigenetics I provided. You still think there's no research going on, and that no one can ever know any details?

John: So you admit that my characterization of your claim is correct? You are basically saying that "given the existence of these regulatory systems, evolution can now do X". Why don't you see that he is asking for how random mutation could ever produce something as complex and deeply integrated as these machines?

You're still assuming X includes building regulatory systems.

Again, cells build regulatory systems. And they do so because the genome contains the knowledge of how to build them.

Regulatory systems represent adaptations. Adaptations represent transformations of matter. Transformations occur in when the requisite knowledge of how perform that transformation is present, along with the necessary energy, etc. Right?

For example, imagine DNA repair mechanisms in human beings were 100% effective, in that they thwarted all known and unknown evolutionary mechanisms. If this was the case, would you expect our offspring not to have regulatory systems?

Of course not. They would have regulatory systems because the knowledge of how to build them is found in our genome.

Cars, on the other hand, do not build themselves. The knowledge of how to build cars exists in us, and the robots we've programed to assemble them.

"What creationists offer as an alternative is God. That's not how, that's who. You might as well say that Mr. Mxyzptlk did it for all it tells about how it was done."

No actually if one studies the origination of the universe then the properties of 'who' is the creator of the universe, i.e. God, blends exactly into 'how' it was done. 'Mr. Mxyzptlk', being an abstract, imaginary, entity of Ian's mind, and Ian being a finite being, a being who denies that he even has a transcendent mind, does not blend exactly into 'how' it was done. In the following video Dr. Craig lists the necessary properties of the 'uncaused cause' of this universe:

What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? - William Lane Craig - videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI

The necessary properties of the cause of the universe (and the laws that govern the universe) are listed as such by Dr. Craig:

What is Truth?https://docs.google.com/document/d/15HKskY90jyF9jNTmxROdX0rTxeYRgmbD3X5PBgG9YPg/edit

further notes:

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - (Paper delivered at Hawking's 70th birthday partyCosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Bostonhttp://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/

"Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

God is the necessary Being which grounds all of realityhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1yHEwK2ZOlyiobVOJ9i-_FiFz37pVj0sQ-viPZu9V_dA/edit